VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV: A RUSSIAN

NEWMAN
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV.
At the
ag-e
of
38.
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
A RUSSIAN NEWMAN
(i853-T
9oo)
BY
MICHEL D HERBIGNY
TRANSLATED BY
A. M.
BUCHANAN,
M.A.
R. & T.
WASHBOURNE,
LTD.
PATERNOSTER
ROW,
LONDON
AND AT
MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM,
AND GLASGOW
All
rights
restrvca.
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE
THE
present
translation of d
Herbigny
s
Vladimir
Soloviev a work crowned
by
the Academic
Franaise was undertaken at the
request
of the
late Father Thomas
Gerrard,
who intended to edit
the
English
version and to write an
introductory
appreciation
of the Russian Newman. Father
Gerrard died without
accomplishing
his
design;
he
had, however,
written an article on
Soloviev,
which
appeared
in the Catholic }Yorld of
June, 1917;
and,
through
the
courtesy
of the
editor,
this article is
here
reproduced.
The translator is
deeply
indebted to Father
William
MacMahon,
S.J.,
for his extreme kindness
in
reading
the
manuscript
of the
translation,
and
for the
many
valuable
suggestions
and emendations
that he has made.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION: ARTICLE ON SOLOYIEY BY
FATHER THOMAS
J.
GERRARD
-
I
CHAPTER
I. NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV
2Q
II. THE INFLUENCE OF TOLSTOI* AND TCHADAIEV
-
35
III. EARLY INFLUENCES
50
IV. SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR
-
68
V. SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 88
VI. SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
99
vii. SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST: "THE
JUSTIFICATION
OF GOOD
"
nS
VIII. THE BEGINNING OF SOLOVIEV S WORK AS A THEO
LOGIAN : "EARLY ESSAYS" "THE GREAT
DEBATE
" "
JUDAISM
AND CHRISTIANITY
"
135
ix. SOLOVIEV S DEVELOPMENT AS A THEOLOGIAN
QUESTIONS
PUT TO THE RUSSIAN HIERARCHY
HIS RELATIONS WITH MGR. STROSSMAYER
"
THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THEOCRACY
"
164
X. THE CONCLUSIONS OF SOLOVIEV THE THEO
LOGIAN : "THE RUSSIAN IDEAL" "LA
RUSSIE ET L EGLISE UNIVERSELLE
"
184
xi. SOLOVIEV
S ASCETICISM
-
232
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
THE
RUSSIAN NEWMAN
INTRODUCTION*
ONE of the fortunes of war has been the revelation
to Western
eyes
of a
Russian
mystic.
It is
Vladimir
Soloviev. He is not
only
the foremost
spiritual
philosopher
of
Russia,
but he is also one of the most
distinguished
types
of the modern mind. Towards
the end of his
life he
happened
to write a book
against Tolstoi,
combating
that writer s
doctrine of
the
non-resistance of evil. The book has
lately
re
ceived two
translations into
English,
as a statement
of the
philosophy
of war from the Russian
point
of view.
The
subject
of
war, however,
holds but a
secondary
place
in the
book,
and indeed a
very secondary place
in the life of Soloviev. His
great
lifework was an
exposition
and
propaganda
of the claims of
the
Universal Church. He was a convert from Ortho
doxy
to
Catholicism,
and the one
ruling passion
of his life was to familiarize Russia with the idea of
a Universal
Church,
monarchical in its
constitution.
This is the chief
reason for
calling
him the
Russian
*
Article on
Soloviev,
contributed to the Catholic World
by
Father Thomas Gerrard.
2 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Newman. There were other
striking
similarities
between the two
men,
although
their
divergencies
were even more
striking
and
more numerous.
Soloviev,
like
Newman,
was
very lonely
in his
soul. He worked
always
from within the voice of
conscience was his
all-impelling guide
and force.
His method was the
personal
one. He conceived
in his own
peculiar way
a
philosophy
of the whole
man,
which was neither
intellectualist,
voluntarist,
nor sentimentalist. With the watchword
of
"
in-
tegralism,"
he stood for the due
equipoise
of all the
faculties of man in the search for truth. He worked
out for himself a method
remarkably analogous
to
Newman s doctrine of
the Illative
Sense,
but with
this
important
difference,
that he
always preserved
a
profound respect
for the use and the value of the
syllogism.
Yet
if,
on the one
hand,
he was
personal
and
subjective,
it was
always
with a sane
appreciation
of the value of
objective
evidence. Like Newman
again,
he took a
special delight
in the
study
of
Holy
Scripture
and the
Fathers,
of Church
history
and
the
development
of
religion.
Like
Newman, too,
he had an ardent love for his own
country.
He
thought
of Catholicism for
Russia,
and believed that
if
only
Russia were Catholic it would mean the
religious
transformation
of the whole world.
Unlike
Newman,
Soloviev never became a
priest.
Both before and after his conversion
he
preferred
to work as a
layman.
Nevertheless,
he deemed
that he could best follow his
calling by remaining
a celibate.
Once,
at the
age
of
eighteen,
he did
INTRODUCTION
3
think of
marriage,
but,
by
the time he had arrived
at the
age
of
twenty,
he had
fully
resolved to lead
a
single
life.
Soloviev was born on
January
16,
1853,
the
son of the Russian
historian,
Serge
Mikhailovitch
Soloviev. His
grandfather
was a
priest
of the
Orthodox
Church,
whilst on his mother s side he
was related to the
philosopher
Skovorod. Thus
all the influences of his childhood tended to imbue
him with the
spirit
of the Slav. He
grew up
a
Slav of the Slavs. What he wrote of his father
in
later
years
was a
summary
of the influences which
bore on his own
early
life:
"
With a most
passionate
love he loved
Orthodoxy,
science,
and the Russian
fatherland."
The
son, however,
did not remain
long
under the
supervision
of his
parents.
In
1864,
at the
age
of
eleven,
he
passed
into the
gymnasium
at Moscow.
At
once,
even in these
boyish years,
he
began
to
show himself alive to the
thought
of the West. It
was
something
other than what he had been ac
customed to in his
parental
home. He read Strauss s
Leben
Jesu
and Renan s Vie de
Jesus.
But the
book that most
captivated
him was Biichner s
Force and Matter. It had
just
been
censured,
and
was
consequently
in the hands of
many
of the older
students. And
consequently,
also,
it had to be
in the hands of this
boy philosopher.
He read each
book in its
original language,
and
persuaded
himself
that he was
solving
a
great question.
So at the
age
of fourteen he came to the conclusion that he
could never more take
part
in
any religious
act.
4
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
According
to his
judgment
the Christian faith could
not withstand the discoveries of science. The
spiritual
world was an illusion.
Such
ill-digested
food, however,
could never
agree
with him. Both his mind and his
feelings
were dissatisfied with his immature conclusion.
In later
years
he wrote of this time:
"
At the
age
of
thirteen or
fourteen,
when I was a zealous materialist
my great problem
was this: How can
any
sensible
people
remain Christians ? And I could
only explain
the
strange
fact
by supposing
either
hypocrisy
or a
peculiar
kind of madness. This was
silly enough
for a
boy.
. . ."
It was his father who saved him. He took him
seriously
and
impressed upon
him the
importance
of the
problem
of life.
Young
Soloviev continued
to treat his
problem seriously,
and for three
years
remained absorbed in the obscurities of matter and
evil. His
very sincerity
served him well and
kept
him
straight morally.
Where his fellow-students
carried the subversive doctrines to a
practical
conclusion,
Soloviev
kept
true to his saner instincts.
In fact it was
through
one of his rationalist authors
that he found his
conversion,
the one
being
none
other than
Spinoza. Through
the
study
of that
writer he
gradually
reached a conviction of the
reality
of the
spirit
world,
and of the
necessary
existence of God. Of
course,
there was in
Spinoza
the
danger
of the other extreme. The reaction
from materialism
might easily,
under such a
leader,
have led him into an
equally
crude
spiritualism.
But Soloviev saw farther than his master. His
INTRODUCTION
5
own
personal
method of
philosophizing
made him
see that God must be both
personal
and transcendent.
On
leaving
the
gymnasium
he had decided to be a
philosopher by profession,
but not for the sake of a
living,
nor
yet
for the sake of
philosophy.
He had
a
particular
detestation of the
principle
of art for
art s sake. All these
things
were for the sake of
love love of God and love of souls. Hence he
could have no use for the
impersonal
God of
Spinoza.
Thus did his
personal
method
carry
him over the
stumbling-block
of
pantheism. Having
cleared his
own
mind,
he next
sought
to
bring
his conviction
to bear on his
country.
But he found himself
opposed
both on the
right
and on the left. His
countrymen
were divided into two
camps,
those
who stood for the introduction of liberal
thought
from the
West,
and those who stood for the national
traditions. To these
parties
were
given
the names
respectively
of Occidentalists and
Slavophiles.
The
Occidentalists,
enamoured of the catchwords
"
liberty
"
and
"
evolution,"
were
ready
for
every
kind of revolution.
Existing
institutions no
longer
commanded their
respect. They
wanted no more
Tsar,
nor
yet any
more Orthodox Church.
They
could even do without
any
form of
Christianity
whatsoever. If
they
were to have
any religion
at
all,
they preferred
the
positivism
of
Auguste
Comte.
The
Slavophiles,
on the other
hand,
were
guided
by
two
simple
and almost identical
principles,
namely,
to have
nothing
to do with the
West,
and
never to
depart
from the customs of the East. This
double
principle,
of
course, included the further one
6
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
that
Orthodoxy
was to remain the
religion
of
Russia,
and that
every
resistance must be offered to the
Roman Catholic Church. The offices both in the
State and in the Church were
naturally
filled with
Slavophiles,
whilst the Universities
afforded
oppor
tunities for the Occidentalists. Both
parties,
how
ever,
were united in their
hostility
to Rome.
Such was the
general
trend of
thought
when
Soloviev entered
upon
his career as a
professor
of
philosophy.
He set for himself the task of recon
ciling
the
opposing camps.
He would show that
liberty
and
authority
were not
mutually
exclusive,
but that an
equipoise
could be established between
them. This
equipoise
was also to be attained
between faith and science one could be learned
without
giving up
the faith. It was also to be at
tained between the Church and the fatherland
one could
belong
to a Universal Church and at the
same time be
loyal
to one s
country.
Soloviev
was thus above all
parties,
and,
consequently,
won
from them
varying
measures of
approval
and
opposition.
The
opposition, especially
in the forms
of the
rigours
of
censorship,
was so insistent
through
out his short life that it was not until after his death
that his influence
began
to
produce
evident effects.
The
ground
wherein he
proposed
to sow his seed
had been
prepared by
two other
philosophers,
to
whom he also was much indebted. The
sterility
of Russian
thought
had been
mercilessly exposed
by
Pierre Tchadaiev. The
evils,
economic and
political,
with which Russia was
afflicted,
had been
laid
bare
by
Leo
Tolstoi.
But neither Tolstoi
INTRODUCTION
7
nor Tchadaiev
provided
a
remedy.
Their
work
had
to be
perfected
by
Soloviev.
Before
he had
reached
the
age
of
twenty
he had
come
back to the Christian
faith.
The
concluding years
of his student
life at the
University
of Moscow
were
marked
by
a wide
variety
of interests
he
followed
the courses
of
history
and
philology,
physical
science
and mathematics,
and
also
a course
of
theology
at the ecclesiastical academy.
At
length
the time
came
for his final
examination,
which
took
place
at
Petrograd
on
November
24,
1874.
His
first thesis,
which
was
formulated
against
the
positivists,
was
entitled
A Criticism
of
Western
Philosophy.
It treated
of the double
evolution
of
thought,
idealism
from
Descartes
Hegel,
and
empiricism
from
Bacon
to Mill,
lines of
thought,
he maintained,
ended
in a
positivism
which
was at once atheist,
egoist,
pessimist,
and
revolutionary.
His
act
made
a sensation,
hearers
were
captivated
and
immediately
began
to
take
sides
for or
against
him.
In
spite
of his
many
adversaries
he
was nominated
to a minor
professorship
at the
University
of Moscow.
Thus
at the
age
of
twenty-one
he
began
his career
as
a teacher.
The
opening
words
of his first
lecture
were
characteristic:
"
In
every sphere
of his
activity,
and
before
all
else,
man dreams
of
liberty."
It was
a bold
word in the Russia
of those
days,
for it
implied
the curtailment
of
many
a
governmental
activity.
His
development
of the theme was,
however,
still
bolder.
The necessities
of existence
imposed
on
man
three
kinds
of societies,
an economic
society
8
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
for the
utilization of the material
world,
a
political
society
for the
ordering
of relations between man
and
man,
and a
religious
society
for the due sub
ordination of man to God. Thus there is established
a
free theocracy. By
this term Soloviev meant a
knowledge
of the divine
prerogatives,
a
consequent
love of
them,
and a free
acceptance
of them which
alone could
bring
real
liberty.
Russia, however,
was not
yet ripe
for such ad
vanced
thought.
The
young professor
s success
was
brilliant,
but it led to
jealousy
and
intrigues
against
him. After three months of
teaching
he
was removed from his chair. He was not
yet
bad
enough
for Siberia. So he was
silenced
by being
sent
upon
a scientific mission to London and Paris.
The ostensible
purpose
of this
journey
was the
study
of
spiritism
and cabalism. In
London,
how
ever,
he
occupied
himself much with
Anglicanism
and the
question
of
reunion with the
Orthodox
Church. From
London he went to France and
Italy,
making
his
way
to
Egypt
to
study
the beliefs of
the Arabs. In the train he had his first
experience
of
Catholic
clergy
two hundred and
fifty
of them
on their
way
to Rome.
"
Fine
fellows,"
he called
them,
"
and not one of them looked like a
Jesuit."
On his return he
spent
a month in
Italy
and a fort
night
in Paris. It was in Paris that he first con
ceived the idea of a book on the
Principle of
Universal
Religion,
an idea which fructified
eventually
in his
chief
work,
Russia and the Universal Church.
In
Paris, too,
he met
Renan,
who made no better
impression
on him than that of
"
a
vulgar
boaster,"
INTRODUCTION
9
By
the
beginning
of
1877
the
agitation against
him had calmed
down,
so that he was allowed to
return to Moscow. But almost
immediately
there
was trouble. He was not minded to
suppress
the
truth which was so dear to his
heart,
nor were his
enemies minded to allow him to
express
it. A
conference which he called The Three Forces was
the occasion of his further
persecution.
His thesis
was that mankind was influenced
by
three
forces,
a
tendency
towards social
unity,
a
tendency
towards
individualism,
and a
higher tendency
to
respect
God in other individuals and in their societies.
The first
tendency
had been
exaggerated by
the
Mussulman,
with the result that he had become
stagnated.
The second had been
exaggerated by
the
peoples
of the
West,
with the result that their
energies
had become isolated almost to
vanishing-
point.
The third
tendency
remained as
something
to be realized
by
the Slav of the East. Then would
Russia live and be the
leavening
influence of the
world.
Such a
thesis, however,
was
pleasing
to neither
party.
To the
Slavophiles
it was not exclusive
enough.
To the Occidentalists it was not revolu
tionary enough.
Both
parties,
therefore,
combined
to have silence
imposed
on Soloviev and to have
him sent into retirement.
By
the intervention of friends an honourable
retirement was found for him. He was
appointed
to a
position
on the Council of Education at Petro-
grad.
The
appointment
was
generally
considered
as a sort of
reparation,
but nevertheless it
kept
io VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Soloviev
directly
under the control of the authorities,
and
effectively
hindered his
liberty
of
speech.
Shortly
afterwards he was nominated to a minor
professorship
in the
Petrograd
University,
but his
career there was even shorter than at Moscow.
His
thought
was
developing rapidly,
and had
now taken a direction
leading straight
towards
Catholicism.
The embodiment of his
thought
took the
shape
of twelve Lectures on Theandrism.
"
Theandrism
"
was the
companion
word to his
"
Theocracy."
By theocracy
he meant a full and free
acknowledg
ment of the
rights
and
authority
of God. Such an
acknowledgment
made us
recognize
God in His
creatures,
and led us to love our
neighbours
as our
selves. But all these traces of God in man were but
sketches of the
great
divine
appearance,
when the
Word was made flesh in the womb of a
Virgin.
Thus did the
figurative
theandrisms
give way
to
the real
theandrism,
God made man in
history.
The
purpose
of this theandrism
was that all men
might
become united to God. We are all called to
be
partakers
of the divine nature.
Thus there is
now a universal theandrism,
which is made
up
of the
united multitude of
participated
theandrisms.
A savour of
pantheism, perhaps,
some will
say.
Soloviev, however,
took
pains
to
guard against
this
by
declaring
that the Man-God was one
unique
Person.
Jesus
Christ alone was the Word
eternally
begotten.
And from
Him,
as from the
Father,
the
Holy
Ghost
eternally proceeds.
For a universal
theandrism
every
man must be
incorporated
into
INTRODUCTION
n
Christ.
Every
earthly activity
must be subordin
ated to this end.
The
purpose
of all societies,
civil and economic,
is to serve the
Kingdom
of
God,
the
Church,
the Universal Church,
the Catholic
Church.
From
the above
it is evident that from his
early
manhood
Soloviev
was
fully
convinced of the doctrine
of the
Filioque.
Living
in the
theological
atmosphere
which
he
did,
this alone must have been a tremendous
help
to him
in
adjusting
his ideas on the Universal
Church.
As
yet
his
concept
of
the Church
was
wanting
in definition,
and indeed some of its lines
were
very
crooked
in
comparison
with the
objective
reality.
Nevertheless
he
hoped
to see a Universal
Church
some
day
realized
by
an
agreement
between
the East
and the
West,
and to
bring
about this
union
became
the
ruling passion
of his life.
One would have
thought
that the formulation
of
his ideas would have been met with
great
favour
by
the
various authorities
who were
watching
him.
For he maintained
that the Eastern Church
repre
sented
a Divine foundation,
whilst the Western
represented
only
human
weakness;
and it was the
union
of these two elements which would
produce
a
spiritualized
humanity,
a Universal
Church.
But the
proposal
pleased
no one. Conservatives
and Liberals
conspired together
for the removal
of Soloviev
from the
Petrograd
University.
And
within
four
months,
namely
in
March, 1881,
his
career
as a
professor
was
brought
to a
close,
and
this time for ever.
In deference,
however,
to the Russian authorities,
12
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
we
ought
to
say
that it was not
merely
his abstract
views on a Universal Church which caused him to
be removed. These views fructified into certain
practical
conclusions of which the Russian State
was bound to take notice. For
instance,
Soloviev
protested against
the
frequent
executions in
Russia,
and invited the new Tsar to
give
Christian
example.
He asked
him,
for
instance,
not to execute
regicides,
but to
give
them a chance of moral
enlightenment
and conversion. But Russia was not
ready
for
such
developments
of the
City
of God.
Thenceforward to the end of his life Soloviev was
refused all
public utterance,
except by way
of
writing
which could be controlled
by
the censor. A few
months before his death the
University
of Warsaw
obtained
permission
to offer him a chair. The
incident was useful as an indication of the
growing
tolerance of the Russian
State,
but it came too late
to be of
any
service to Soloviev as a lecturer. Hence
forward his life was that of a writer.
But even as a writer the
censorship
held him
within what he believed too limited a
sphere.
He
persevered
as
long
as he could in his native
tongue.
But the
annoyances
became so
frequent
that he at
length sought
an outlet for his work in a
foreign
language.
His first article outside Russia
appeared
in a Croatian
journal,
Katolik
List,
under the title
Eastern Church or Orthodox Church. In all his
evasions of the
law, however,
he remained
loyal
to
the Tsar and to Russia. When he was
charged
with want of
patriotism
he
replied
that his
patriotism
was of a
much
better
kind than was
commonly
INTRODUCTION
13
supposed;
for his love for Russia was not a blind
love,
blinding
him to her
faults,
but a love which
enabled him to love her in
spite
of her faults. Whilst
loving
her he condemned her acts of
injustice.
He
longed
for a
greater
and more beautiful
Russia,
less
dominating
and less violent. He wished for
a Russia better
ordered,
more moral and more
Christian more
truly worthy
to be called
Holy
Russia. He
hoped
for a Russia influential less
by
its arms than
by
its faith and
charity.
He wanted
a Russia that would
develop
the
mystic body
of
Christ and that would
glorify
the
only
and
holy
Church of
Jesus
Christ.
In the
past
the hindrance to all
religious progress
had been the schism between the East and the West.
Here, then,
was his
problem
of the future. How
could there be an
Orthodoxy truly Slavophile, yet
obedient to the command to teach all nations ?
To solve this
question,
Soloviev
gave
himself
up
to a
systematic study
of
theology,
at the same time
keeping
his
philosophy
in
living
contact with the
question.
Indeed it is remarkable how he made
nearly every question
he touched lead
up
to the
theme of the Universal Church.
As a
philosopher
his
thought
divided
naturally
into two
streams,
the mental and the moral science.
His
treatise,
The
Philosophical Principles of
an
Integral
Science,
laid down the basis of his meta
physics.
He maintained that
nearly
all
contempo
raneous
philosophy
treated the intellectual life with
too much isolation. It had been
rudely
divorced
from the life of man as a whole. Such a
method,
I
4
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
whether
by way
of
Hegelianism,
or of
empiricism,
would be sure to lead to
scepticism.
Moreover,
such a method missed the
supreme question
of
philosophy,
namely
: Whither does this life lead ?
Therefore Soloviev
replied
with his
integralism
or whole-man
philosophy.
In addition to the
intelligence seeking
the
True,
the full
appropriation
of
reality
involves a
disposition
of the will
seeking
the
Good,
and a
quickened
sensibility
seeking
the
Beautiful. Thus was this
integral philosophy
in
full communication with
physical
science on the
one hand and
speculative thought
on the other.
With such
experience
it could turn human reflection
towards
superhuman
realities. It could mount
up
beyond
human
life,
beyond
cosmic
life,
until it
reached the absolute Essence-Existence.
As a
moralist,
Soloviev summed
up
his
teaching
in a
work
entitled,
The
Justification of
the Good. His
aim was to show his readers the real
meaning
of
life. He
proposed
to them three
questions
: Has life
got
a reason for its existence ? Must one seek for
the
meaning
of life in the moral order ? Does the
higher flight
into that which is
spiritual require,
permit,
or exact a sacrifice of that which would be
excess in
physiological
tendencies ?
We have said that Soloviev was one of the fore
most
examples
of the modern mind. This is
especially
evident in his
great
work on morals.
He not
only
showed the clearest
grasp
of the
present
situation,
but
also,
like the
English
Newman,
he showed a keen
anticipation
of the
future.
INTRODUCTION
15
First,
he dealt with the
pessimists
who abandoned
their lives to
caprice,
and
who,
when further
satisfaction was not to be
had,
committed suicide.
Even
they
bore witness to a
higher meaning
of life.
They
felt it and saw
it,
but
they
were too
lazy
to
make the effort to reach it.
Then came the aesthetes of
every
kind. To them
life had a
meaning
because it was a
great
force,
because it had a
grandeur
and a
beauty. Morality
did not enter into such
concepts.
The moral life
was inconvenient and uncomfortable.
Beauty,
however,
was
fascinating,
and the
grandeur
of life
exalted and
quickened
us. It was the doctrine
of the
strong
man set
up by
Nietzsche:
"
Slaves
can adore a God Who makes Himself man and
humbles Himself. But the
strong
adore
only
their own ascent to the
superman,
the endless
pro
gression
of human
beauty,
human
grandeur,
and
human
power."
But,
replied
Soloviev,
that endless
progression
ends in a
corpse.
Instead of
beauty you
have
putrefaction.
The inexorable fact of death reduces
the
body
s
beauty
and
grandeur
and
power
to
nothing. Christianity,
on the
contrary,
is not
founded
upon
death,
but
upon
the First-born from
the
dead,
and real
beauty, grandeur,
and
power
could
only
be found in the Absolute Good.
Such is the
general
trend of the
work,
the final
aim
being
"
the
perfect organization
of an
integral
humanity."
And such
organization postulated
a
Universal Church. Thus the
philosopher
has all
unconsciously
transformed himself into a
theologian.
1 6 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Yet not
unconsciously,
for he is careful to notice
that the
superhuman
is not
acquired by
natural
science,
having
need of a
special
communication.
"
This
communication,
willed
by
God,
opens
to our
thought
a new
sphere
of studies and
contemplations
:
the intimate
deeps
of
divinity
become accessible
to
theology
and the
mystical
life."
Henceforward,
therefore,
theology
was to claim a
larger
share of
his attention. And he needed it. He was so
extremely
nationalist,
so
thoroughly
imbued with
Slavophile
ideas,
that he
thought
the Christian
restoration of the world was reserved for Russia
and the Orthodox Church. The Western Church
had dwelt too much on the material element of
the
Incarnation,
propagating
the faith
by
force,
and
thinking
more of ecclesiastical domination than
the love of Christ. And as for the
Reformation,
although
it
fought against
these
abuses,
yet
it was
itself
poisoned
with Western
individualism,
and
shrunk into sheer rationalism. Solovie
v,
in a
word,
had
just
that view of
"
Romanism
"
which
was traditional and current in the East.
Nevertheless he resolved to face an
independent
inquiry
into the value of the Roman Catholic claims.
He
gave
himself
up
to the volumes of Mansi and
Migne.
The Councils
and the Fathers
were the
sources whence he
sought
the truth. He made a
Russian
translation of the
Didache,
claiming,
in
his
introduction,
that it showed how Providence
was
always
allied to a
perpetual
hierarchy
and the
dogma
of the sacraments.
The due
developments
of these
doctrines, therefore,
were not novelties
INTRODUCTION
17
invented
by
the Catholic
Church,
as the Orthodox
Church asserted.
Once
again
the enemies of Soloviev were roused.
He went
forward, however,
and even ventured to
censure the
spiritual power
in Russia. He blamed
the
Holy Synod
for the sin of inaction. At the
same time he delivered a counter-blast
against
the Roman Catholic Church. In the
West,
he
said,
the
Papacy
had set
up
the
Pope
in
place
of
Christ,
and Protestantism had hunted out Christ. Ortho
dox Russia
alone,
up
to the
eighteenth century,
had
respected
the
liberty
of souls. The
separation
of the East from the West
ought
never to have taken
place.
The evil
wrought by Constantinople
should
be
repaired by
Russia.
Having grown up
and
become conscious of
herself,
Russia should no
longer
continue the historic sin of
Constantinople.
Rome
was
thoroughly
Christian because she was universal.
Let us not
exaggerate
her faults.
Then he issued his
important
work: The Great
Conflict
and Christian Politics. The
conflict,
of
course,
was that between the East and the West.
It was not
essentially
a
religious
conflict,
but one
of radical
tendencies. The East was
contemplative,
and in this
guise yielded
itself to
every
form of
inactivity.
The West was
active,
and in this
guise
yielded
itself to the
merely
human. The Incarnation
restrained the two
tendencies. Nevertheless
they
were the real cause of the schism of
1054
: the
Filioque
was but the
pretext.
Pride and
ambition,
he
maintained,
had caused the
Popes
to restore the
old Caesarism. That was not the
authority
with
i8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
which the Church of Christ should be ruled. The
word
Caput
Ecclesia,"
he
wrote,
"
cannot be
applied
to all the
Popes
;
only
those have merited it in whom
Christian
humanity
has been able to
recognize
the
Eternal Pontiff." The book caused a
big
sensation.
Its
purpose
was
immediately
turned into a
political
direction. Soloviev was
charged
with
agitating
on behalf of Poland !
A refutation of the work was
attempted by
the
Archpriest
A. M. Ivantzov-Platanov.
Soloviev
replied
with nine
leading questions.
These were
intended rather for the whole Russian
hierarchy.
But
they
reached much farther.
They
travelled
as far as
Rome,
and were made the
subject
of a
conference
by
Cardinal Mazzella.
There was now an active communication set
up
between Soloviev and certain
representative
Catholics. Soloviev wrote to
Bishop Strossmayer
of Bosnia and
Sirmium,
asking
for an interview
either at
Agram
or
Djakovo.
The Russian
police,
however,
were on the watch.
They interrupted
his
plans,
and for six months
prevented
him from
leaving
the
country.
But on
June 29,
1886,
he
managed
to arrive at
Vienna,
and from there wrote
immediately
to
Bishop Strossmayer.
The
Bishop
welcomed him as his
guest
at
Djakovo,
where he
remained for two months. Both host and
guest
were
enthusiastically Slavophile,
a circumstance
which enabled them to come near
together
in their
discussions on the cause of reunion.
Yet with all his
good
intentions towards Rome
Soloviev asserted his
constancy
towards Russia
INTRODUCTION
19
and the Church of Russia.
Writing
to
Bishop
Strossmayer
on his
way
home,
he enclosed a memo
randum in which he declared that after the reunion
"
the
superior position
which
always belonged
to
the Eastern
Church,
and which now in Russia
belonged
to the Orthodox
Emperor,
should remain
intact."
This memorandum marked a new direction for
Soloviev. He understood that henceforward his
mission in life
was,
at the cost of
every personal
sacrifice,
to work for an
agreement
between Russia
and the Catholic
Church. He would show
by
his
example
that a Slav could and
ought,
whilst re
maining
a
Slav,
to widen his heart and soul towards
Catholic faith and
zeal,
and
prove
that Roman
Catholicism
completed,
crowned and unified all
that was
legitimate
in the traditional
Orthodoxy
of the East.
For the realization of this idea he
planned
a
large
work in three
volumes,
to which he
gave
the title of
The
History
and Future
of Theocracy.
But
only
one volume saw the
light.
The censor
refused
permission
to
print.
Soloviev
again
had recourse
to a
foreign publisher.
After
having
made certain
excisions in the
hope
that the book
might
be admitted
to
Russia,
he issued it at
Agram.
But the com
promise
was
ineffective;
the book was
prohibited.
Soloviev now felt that it was waste of time to write
any
further in Russian for the Russians. He must
try
a more roundabout
way.
So he
began
a new
work in
French,
one which
proved
to be his
greatest
and most effectual : Russia and the Universal Church.
2o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
The fundamental
thesis of
this,
which embodied
his one aim in
life,
might
be stated as follows:
"
The Universal
Church is founded on the truth
affirmed
by
our faith. Since truth is
one,
the true
faith must also be one. And since the
unity
of
faith does not reside
really
and
directly
in the
whole
body
of the
faithful,
it must be
sought
in the
lawful
authority
residing
in one head
authority
having
the
guarantee
of divine assistance
and
thus received
with love and confidence
by
all the
faithful/
*
And the first
step
in the
explication
of the thesis was "to establish
a moral and in
tellectual bond between the
religious
conscience
of
Russia and the truth of the Universal
Church."
His
hope lay
in the
simple
Russian
people.
He
drew a
big
distinction
between the intellectuals
and officials
on the one hand and the multitude
on
the other.
The
latter,
he
maintained,
were
really
Catholic in their faith and
piety.
It was the official
theologians
who were so anti-Catholic.
A work of less
importance,
though perhaps
of more
topical
interest
at the
present
moment,
is the one
which has
lately
been offered to the
English-speaking
public.
Its correct
title is:
War,
Progress,
and the
End
of
History
: Three Discussions.
Two
English
translations
have
appeared
during
the
past year,
one issued
by
the
University
of London Press under
the aforesaid title,
the other issued
by
Constable
under
the title: War and
Christianity from
the
Russian
point
of
view : Three Conversations.
The book was written as an antidote to Tolstoi.
*
La Russie
et I
Eglise
universetle, Paris, 1889, p. 93-
INTRODUCTION
21
The
question
of militarism was
exercising people
s
minds. Tolstoi had been
writing against
war,
and with such effect that men were
resenting
con
scription.
Officers even were known to have been
ashamed of the
army
and to have
given up
their
profession
in
consequence.
Tolstoi
had,
in
fact,
created an
impression
that war had no moral
defence.
Soloviev came forward as the
champion
of his
country
s cause. He was
quite
as
good
a Slav as
Tolstoi and a much better
disputant.
Tolstoi
had
preached
from the text:
"
Resist not him that
is
evil,
but whosoever smiteth thee on the
right
cheek,
turn to him the other also." From that he
had inferred that the use of
physical
force in the
settlement of
disputes
showed a desire to do
evil,
and therefore was
wrong.
The
logical
outcome of such
teaching required
the
abrogation
of all
military
and
police arrange
ments. Soloviev saw in this
nothing
but the down
fall of
European
civilization,
and its
replacement
by
a
Pan-Mongolism.
So he asks:
"
Can reason
and conscience count
up
to three ?" If
so,
then
they
must see how
wrong
it is for number one to stand
by,
whilst number two
persecutes
the innocent
number three.
This
argument
he embodies in an
imaginary
conversation,
which takes
place
between five
Russians in a
garden
on the shores of the Medi
terranean. An old
General,
a
politician,
a
young
prince,
a
lady
of middle
age,
and Mr. Z. make
up
the
company.
The
prince
is
obviously
meant for
22 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Tolstoi,
and Mr. Z. for Soloviev himself. The
General,
who is the chief
speaker
in the first con
versation,
tells the
story
of one of his
exploits
in
the Russo-Turkish War. A
large party
of Bashi-
Bazouks had sacked an Armenian
village,
commit
ting unspeakable
atrocities.
"
I could not
mention,"
says
the
General,
"
all the details. One
picture
is
clear in
my eyes
at this moment a woman
lying
on her back on the
ground,
her neck and shoulders
tied to the cart-wheel in such a
way
that she could
not turn her
head,
and she
lay
there neither burnt
nor
broken,
but with a
ghastly
twisted
expression
on her face she had
evidently
died from terror.
In front of her was a
high pole
stuck into the
ground,
and a naked
baby
was tied to it
probably
her
own son all black with fire and its
eyes protruding."
With Cossacks and
artillery
he set out in
pursuit
and overtook them. First one Cossack and then
another rolled
over,
until at
length
the eldest
centurion came to him and asked: "Order us to
attack,
Excellency
! Otherwise anathema will fall
upon
us before we
get
the
artillery
into
position."
"
Be
patient, darlings,"
he
replies, "just
for a little.
I know
you
can scatter
them,
but what sweetness
is there in that ? God orders me to make an end
of
them,
not to scatter them."
And he did make an end of them.
"
God blessed
all
my
six cannon. It was the one occasion in
my
life when I
experienced
a
complete
moral satis
faction.
My
act remains till
now,
and will of course
remain for
ever,
my purest memory.
Well,
and that
one
good
act of mine was a
murder,
and not
by any
I
INTRODUCTION
means a small
murder,
for in a
quarter
of an hour
I
killed
considerably
more than a thousand
men. . . .
Certainly
I did not kill with
my
hands,
with
these
sinful
hands,
but with the aid of six
pure,
sinless,
steel
cannon,
with the most
virtuous and
beneficial
shrapnel."
Of
course,
he is
speaking
ironically
when he calls
it
murder,
using
the
terminology
of the
pacificists.
But in this
way
he deals
blow
after
blow
against
the Tolstoi
position.
The curious
thing
is that the
question
of the
military power
of Russia
brought
Soloviev
once
again
to the
question
of Rome.
The
concluding
pages
of the Three Discussions
are an
allegory
of
the end of
history.
Through
the centuries
the
union of Rome and Russia
has
not
been accom
plished,
but now at the end
of time
it is
clamouring
for consummation.
Soloviev
used the
political
situation
of the time
to
symbolize
the
spiritual.
Japan
was made
to
represent
the
kingdom
of Antichrist,
whilst
Russia
represented
the
Kingdom
of Christ.
With
remark
able
foresight
Soloviev
prophesied
the
defeat
of
Russia
by Japan,
the realization
of which
event
gave point
to his
visions of the
future Church,
and
made him a
prophet
accepted
in his own
country.
There
was an Antichrist
and an
Antipope,
and
Tolstoi himself
was
pictured
as one
of the
fore
runners of Antichrist.
These
drew
the multitudes
after them and
victory
seemed
to be on their
side.
Only
a few Christians
remained
faithful
to the
true
Christ,
the Catholics
led
by
Pope
Peter
II.,
the
24 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Orthodox
by
the
venerable
John,
and the Protest
ants
by
one Professor Ernest Pauli. The
company,
all
told,
numbered
twelve.
They
assembled
together
"
in the darkness of the
night
on a
high
and
lonely
place,"
on the barren hills near
Jericho,
and
then and there was the union of the Churches
accomplished.
Soloviev,
therefore,
was
keenly
conscious of the
many
obstacles
which were in the
way
of the
object
for
which he
laboured,
and of the time it must take
before it
could be
realized. He seemed to know
that his own end was not far
distant,
for he leaves
his
allegory
unfinished the
writer,
he
said,
wished
to
write more when he
got
better. But he did not
get well,
and the end of the tale was buried with
him
in the
Danilof
monastery.
Soloviev,
as a
matter of
fact,
died
suddenly
a few weeks later at the
age
of
forty-seven
on a
journey
to see his mother.
But what
about his own conversion ?
Long,
long ago
he had
sung
his
"
Lead,
Kindly Light
":
"
Beneath the
morning
mists I went with
trembling
footsteps
towards the enchanted land shores full
of
mystery.
The
crimson of the dawn
put
out the
stars;
my
dreams still
hovered round
me,
and
my
soul,
still
wrapped
in
them,
prayed
to the Unknown
God.
"
In the white freshness of the
day
I
walk,
always
alone,
through
an undiscovered
country.
The
mists
disperse.
Mine
eyes
see clear ahead how
steep
the
mountain
path
is,
and how far
away
everything
still seems
everything
that I have
dreamed !
INTRODUCTION 25
"
Until
nightfall
will I
go; marching
with un
wearied stride to the
long-desired
shore,
where,
under the
light
of the
early
stars and in the blaze
of
triumphal
fires,
glows
on the mountain
top
the
temple
that was
promised
me the home that shall
be mine."
But did the mist clear
away,
and did the
temple
of the Church reveal itself to his vision ?
During
the later
years
of his life and for some
years
after
his death certain doubts have
prevailed
concerning
this. Nor have reasons for the doubts been
wanting.
First there was some
necessity
for
keeping
the matter
secret. Soloviev had been warned that if he left
Paris to enter Russia he would
surely
be arrested
and
deported.
Orders had
actually
been
given
for
his internment in a
monastery
in
Archangel.
Hence
there was need of a
prudent
silence. Then after
his death his relations who remained Orthodox were
at
pains
to show that he had never become Catholic.
At
length,
however,
the full truth came out.
On
February
18,
1896,
he was received into the
Catholic Church
by
a convert
priest,
M. Nicolas
Tolstoi. The event took
place
in the
chapel
of
Notre Dame de Lourdes at Moscow in the
presence
of the members of M. Tolstoi s
family
and of several
eminent
people
of
Petrograd
and Moscow. The
priest
was arrested next
day,
but
managed
to evade
prosecution,
and a few
days
later was in Rome to
report
the conversion to
Pope
Leo XIII.
Soloviev had ever stood for the
privileges
of the
Eastern
rites,
and now he made it
quite
clear that
in
joining
the Catholic Church he was not
joining
26 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
the Latin rite.
He, therefore,
made a
profession
of faith which he had fixed
upon long
before the
time came to make it :
"
As a member of the real and venerable Orthodox
Eastern or Greek-Russian Church which
speaks
neither
by
an anti-canonical
synod
nor
by
the
servants of the secular
power
... I
acknowledge
as
supreme judge
in matters of
religion
. . . the
Apostle
Peter who lives in his
successors,
and has
not heard in vain the words of the Saviour: Thou
art Peter and
upon
this rock I will build
My
Church
confirm
thy
brethren feed
My sheep,
feed
My
lambs."
On his
deathbed, however,
he could not obtain
the services of either a
priest
of the Uniate rite or
of the Latin rite. So he availed himself of the
services of the
village
cure" who
happened
to be
of the Orthodox rite. This he was
quite
entitled
to
do,
for
every validly
ordained
priest
has
juris
diction at the hour of death. One
thing,
however,
is
quite
certain,
namely,
that when Soloviev for
the last time confessed his
sins,
he retracted none
of his
theological judgments.
He died in full
communion with Rome.
After his death the Russian authorities removed
the ban from his
works,
and row the voice of the
apostle
of the Universal
Church,
although
silent,
begins
to
speak,
and the sound thereof becomes
ever more and more audible.
Just
as in the West
we have Newman
societies,
so in the East there are
Soloviev
societies,
formed for the
study
and
pro
pagation
of his ideals.
And if in the
past
the
INTRODUCTION
27
Russian Government
has shown so much
opposition
to a
pioneer
of
Catholicism,
and now tolerates him
and
gives
him
freedom,
let us take
hope
for the
future.
Big
institutions
always
move
slowly,
and
Russia is a
very big
institution.
CHAPTER I
NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV
AT first
sight
there seems to be little resemblance
between the
great English
Cardinal
and the so-
called Russian Newman. Further consideration,
however,
will show that their chief
points
of differ
ence
may
be reduced to two Soloviev was never
a
priest,
either before or after his conversion to
Catholicism,
and his
compatriots
never knew with
certainty
whether it was on account of the
liturgical
ceremonies
that he
sought
admission to the Church
of Rome. He
personally
was convinced that he
had at no
period
been
completely
outside her
fold,
but
thought
that the Slavonic nations were not
absolutely
cut off from the
Church,
because the
historic excommunication
affected
Constantinople
and not Russia.
For
instance,
in 1888 he wrote:
"
Russia is not
formally
and
regularly separated
from the Catholic Church. It
occupies
in this
respect
an abnormal and undecided
position,
eminently
favourable
to reunion. The false and
anti-Catholic doctrines,
taught
in our seminaries
and
theological colleges
are not
binding upon
the
Russian Church as a
whole,
nor do
they
in
any way
affect the faith of the
people,
The
government
of
29
30
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
the Russian Church is
illegal,
schismatical,
con
demned
(lata sententia) by
the third canon of the
seventh (Ecumenical
Council;
it is
rejected by
a
considerable number of orthodox Russians
(the
Old
Believers),
and is tolerated in a half-hearted
fashion
by
the rest. It is unfair to blame the
Russian nation for the
Csesaropapism
under
which it
groans,
and
against
which it never
ceases to
protest.
Men like Pobedonostsev and
Tolstoi are no more
representative
of Russia than
men such as
Floquet,
Goblet,
and
Freycinet
are of
France."
Soloviev used to
refer,
in
support
of his
theory,
to the attitude
adopted by Mgr. (afterwards Cardinal)
Vannutelli,
at the time of his
legation
to Moscow
in
1883.
For a member of the Russian Church
to embrace Catholicism two
things only
were,
in
his
opinion, necessary
viz.,
to
reject
the anti-
canonical claims of the Sacred
Synod,
and to submit
to the
jurisdiction
and infallible
authority
of the
Pope.
Under
existing
circumstances,
since the
Slav Uniate
rite,
being
forbidden
by
the Russian
Government,
could not be established in the
empire,
Soloviev
thought
that it would be a mistake to
require
anything
further,
because it would involve dis
obedience to the
pontifical
laws
against
the latini-
zation of
Orientals,
and would
justify
the calumnious
statement that Rome cherishes an
undying hostility
to the
holy
and venerable traditions of the East.
To the end of his life he desired that the members
of the Orthodox Church in Russia should be
per
mitted to submit
directly
to the
Holy
See,
without
NEWMAN
AND SOLOVIEV
3*
being
forced,
or even
allowed,
to
go through any
canonical
formality.
Soloviev
s
profession
of faith was as
complete
as Newman
s,
and bore no resemblance
to
Pusey
s
timid hesitation.
The
anguish
of mind that
pre
ceded
it,
and the ostracism that followed
it,
were
not unlike Newman
s trials. Both felt at first a
strong prejudice
against
the
Papacy,
and in the case
of each this
prejudice
was overcome
by loyalty
to
religion,
fervour in
prayer,
desire to see the
light,
and resolution to do God s will. Both suffered
keenly
when
they
felt it to be their
duty
to
give
up
the instruction of
others;
Newman ceased his
sermons in St
Mary
s at
Oxford,
and Soloviev was
removed from his
lectureship
in
Petrograd.
It is no
easy
task to
analyze
the more subtle
points
of likeness between these two men. Each
possessed
the soul of a
philosopher;
each was an
intuitive
theologian,
an
artist,
and a
scholar;
each
had
deep
affections and
perfect purity.
Their
tastes seem to have been identical
;
they
both loved
Holy Scripture
and the
Fathers,
especially
St.
Augustine;
both studied ecclesiastical
history
and
the
philosophy
of
religious development,
both
strove to raise human
knowledge
to
God,
and to
inculcate the
daily
duties of
religion.
Both,
even
before their
conversion,
pledged
themselves to
perpetual celibacy;
both were
impelled
to sacrifice
earthly
friendships
that
they might
follow
Christ;
both were so
passionately
enamoured of their
country
and the Catholic Church as to offer them
selves to
undergo any suffering,
if
only
a reconcili-
32
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
ation could be effected between these
objects
of
their love.
A man s mind often affects his outward
appear
ance and
expression,
and those who knew Newman
in his
younger days might
have discovered
some
likeness to him in the
description
of Soloviev
at
the
age
of
twenty-three, given by
the Vicomte
de
Vogue",
after
meeting
him for the first time in
1876,
at the house of M. de
Lesseps
in Cairo. De
Vogue
writes:
"
Soloviev has one of those faces that can
never be
forgotten;
he has fine
regular
features,
his
face
is thin and
pale,
surrounded
by long, curly
hair. His
eyes
are
wonderful,
piercing
and
thought
ful. He seems to be an idea clothed in
flesh,
of
the
type
of the Slav Christ
depicted by
the monks
on old
ikons,
one who loves in
spite
of
calumny
and
suffering.
Soloviev is a dialectician and a
dreamer;
frank as a
child,
complex
as a
woman,
perplexing,
attractive,
and indescribable."
Fifty years
earlier
a familiar
figure
in the streets
of Oxford was that of a
young clergyman,
wearing
a
shabby long
coat
;
he was thin and
pale,
and
stooped
a
little,
his
eyes
were
large
and
flashing,
but he
gave
the
impression
of
being
frail and delicate. He
generally
walked
quickly,
absorbed in
thought,
or
else
engaged
in conversation with some friend.
This
Englishman
certainly
bore some resemblance
to the Russian whom
Eugene
Tavernier met in
Paris in
1888,
at the house of the Princess von
Sayn-Wittgenstein,
and whom he describes as
"
very
tall and
thin,
with
splendid eyes,
marvellously
gentle,
clear,
and
piercing,
in
spite
of
being
short-
NEWMAN AND SOLOVIEV 33
sighted.
His manner was
unassuming
and somewhat
shy;
his
speech
revealed
his
energetic
daring
and
firmness;
his voice was
expressive,
deep,
and full
of
startling
inflections,
now
serious,
now
caressing.
A mind
characteristically
French was as natural to
him as to a Parisian."
Soloviev s life was much
shorter than Newman
s
he died at an
age
when Newman
was still at
Littlemore,
but his influence in Russia
is nevertheless
very great.
During
his lifetime
"
many
called
him a
prophet,
sometimes
in
jest,
sometimes
in
earnest
;
but now we can see that the service
which
he rendered us was in
very
truth
that of a
prophet,
and,
although
he was at first misunderstood
and
ridiculed in his own
country,
he
is
becoming
more
highly appreciated
year
by year."
The above
words,
written
by
S. N.
Boulgakov
in
1903,
are
more true now than then. Soloviev
s works have
had a
powerful
influence
upon
the trend of
philo
sophical
and
religious
thought
in
Russia,
and this
influence continues to increase Before, however,
he was in a
position
to exert
it,
he was himself
moulded and
impressed
by
his
surroundings,
and
in order to
gain
a correct
opinion
of
him,
we must
look at his
environment,
and consider
in broad out
lines the
prevailing
tendencies
of Russian
thought
between
1850
and 1880. When
we have done
this,
we shall
perceive
the circumstances
that
formed his
character,
and
shall be able to
ap
preciate
his
originality.
The
study
of his
person
ality
will disclose the historical
importance
of his
work,
and will
perhaps
throw
some
light upon
3
34
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
the
probable
course of the movement that he
initiated.
We can draw
upon
Soloviev himself for a de
scription
of the state of Russia
during
this
period.
He often dealt with this
subject,
and treated it
fully
in his
National
Question
in
Russia,
as well as
in
numerous
articles,
such as The Russian National
Ideal and The Historical
Sphinx, Byzantinism
and
Russia. From the moment of their
publication,
his
opinions
aroused much
discussion,
but he never
abandoned them.
Prejudice
and excessive attention to detail have
caused
many
to overlook the truth of an
independent
synthesis,
which
may
even now astonish some
Russians.
They
would do
well, however,
to note
that the
following pages
do not contain
any pre
conceived
system
devised
by
a
foreigner,
but the
opinions expressed by
a Russian
thinker,
whose
patriotism
is
beyond question,
and whose views
have often been
proved
correct
by subsequent
events. The
very severity
of his
judgments
will
emphasize
the
progress already
made
by
Russia
during
the
past
few
years.
CHAPTER II
THE
INFLUENCE OF
TOLSTOI AND
TCHADAIEV
SOLOVIEV S first
essay
was
written in
1873,
a
year
that marks
the centre of a
period
during
which
Russia
achieved
great
success in her
foreign
policy,
but
began
to lose her vital
energy through
internal
disputes.
The German
Emperor
was
solemnly
re
ceived at
Petrograd,
and his
nephew,
Alexander
II.,
congratulated
him
publicly
on
having
established
a new
empire,
and
exacted
vengeance
for the mis
fortunes of the
Crimean
War.
Since the
latest
rebellion in
Poland had been
crushed,
just
before
the
insurrections
destined to
deliver the
Christian
Slavs
of the
south from the
Turkish
yoke,
Russia
seemed to
dominate the
East,
just
as
Germany
was
supreme
in the
West of
Europe
she had
regained
her
diplomatic
and
military
prestige
in
the
eyes
of
foreign
nations.
On the other
hand,
signs
of
disturbance were in
creasing
in
the
interior.
Tolstoi s
influence
had
revealed to the
masses
and to
individuals
their
secret
grievances.
The evil
was not the
direct
result of his
teaching,
but each
reader
suspected
its
existence in
himself
and
others.
During
an
epidemic,
the
mere
description
of
contagious
dis-
35
36
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
eases
tends, doubtless,
to
spread
them,
and a book
on medicine
may,
at such a
time,
be
dangerous
to
people
with a morbid
imagination.
In the same
way
Tolstoi s works
aggravated
the sense of in
dividual
suffering,
or
actually
caused it
by way
of
suggestion. Everyone thought
that,
because all
men
suffered,
he himself was
suffering; everyone
felt
pity
for his own
lot;
did not Count Tolstoi
grieve
over the
misery
of Russia ?
We must
not, however,
exaggerate.
M.
Radlov,
Soloviev s venerable
friend,
wrote the
following
remark in his
Biographical
Notes on Soloviev :
"
Tolstoi
certainly
contributed towards
checking
the influence of materialism in
Russia,
and
develop
ing
interest in
religious questions."
We
may readily
endorse this
opinion,
and we shall see how Soloviev
himself was at first affected
by
German
materialism,
that for a
long
time
predominated
in
Russia,
whilst
laity
and
clergy
alike
displayed
total indifference
to
religious thought.
On minds and hearts thus
poisoned
with
indifferentism,
Tolstoi s works acted
in
many
cases as an antidote.
Nevertheless,
an
anti-Christian movement is associated with the
name of
Tolstoi,
although
his fame is
greater
in
the West than
among
his own
countrymen,
to
whom
many
of his creations
appear
unreal and
fanciful.
We are
perhaps
too
apt
to believe that he
personi
fies
every type
of Russian
character,
that his heroes
and their actions
represent accurately
the
psychology
of individuals and social
realities,
and that the
paradoxes
of his
gospel,
built on clouds with fantastic
TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV
37
outlines,
would form
collectively
the ideal of
every
Slav
thinker,
whether
simple
or refined.
Men of intellect in
Petrograd
and Moscow do
not share all our
enthusiasm;
they acknowledge
Tolstoi s merits as a writer and his
generous
sacrifices as a man
;
they
admire the
painful accuracy
of his
descriptions,
the
precision
of his
analysis,
and the
purity
of his
style,
but at the
present
time
they
criticize him as a
thinker,
condemn his
theories,
and resist his influence.
This resistance
hardly
existed in
1873,
and we
cannot estimate all the
depressing
results of Tolstoi s
teaching,
which was the more disastrous because
it found
justification
in facts. We are told that
he is not the incarnation of
Russia,
and it is
true;
he and the characters in his books are
Russian,
but
they
do not stand alone.
Karataiev, Gricha,
and
Vronsky
are drawn from
nature,
but there are
many
other
types
besides these
;
and it
may
be that
Tolstoi s influence will be
fleeting,
like that of
Nihilism,
and we should
judge
Russia
unfairly
if we looked at it
altogether
from his
point
of
view;
we
might
as well examine it
through
a
telescope,
the
object-glass
of which was directed towards the
smoke of bombs. Russia deserves better treatment
than this.
The
foregoing
remarks would
certainly
not have
been accurate
during
the
stormy period
between
1860 and
1885.
Then, indeed,
both individuals
and
society
in
general
seemed
only
too often in
capable
of
distinguishing good
from
evil;
in
fact,
they
were not far from
regarding right
and
wrong
38 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
as
identical. As
early
as
1830
Count Peter
Tchadaiev
(1794-1856),
a
very original
thinker
and a
true forerunner of
Soloviev,
had a
presenti
ment of this
misfortune. In a letter written at
Moscow on
December
i,
1829,
he
says:
"
We are
all
deficient in
enterprise,
method,
and
logic,
and
the
syllogism
of the West is unknown to us. Yet
there is
something
more than
frivolity
in our best
intellects,
although
our noblest
ideas,
for want of
connection and
sequence,
are
productive
of
nothing,
and remain
paralyzed
in our brains." And
again:
"
Ours is the recklessness of a life without
experi
ence or
foresight,
which is connected with
nothing
but the
ephemeral
existence of an individual
isolated from his
species.
. . . We have abso
lutely
no idea of what is
general; everything
is to
us
particular, vague,
and
incomplete."
Such
statements,
like all
satires,
are
exaggerated,
but contain an element of truth. Until towards
the end of the nineteenth
century, philosophical
thought
seemed
incapable
of
growth
in Russia.
In these circumstances
philosophy
is
unknown,
and
this lack of
general
culture allows all sorts of follies
to run
riot;
minds have to choose between
being
poisoned
or
dying
of starvation.
The
philosophism
of the
eighteenth century
supplied
no
remedy
for the
evil,
since it contained
very
little real
philosophy,
and this little remained
something foreign
to the Russian
mind,
not
being
its
product,
and not
penetrating
to its
depths.
There were the same
defects
in the
pseudo-
scholasticism of
the
Orthodox seminaries. Derived
TOLSTOI AND TCHADAlEV
39
as it was from miserable German school-books
of
1730,
it was still further
impoverished
by
the
elimination of
everything distinctively
Catholic
or
Protestant in tone. No Russian element was added
to
supplement
this defective
teaching,
and
no
effort at
adaptation
enabled the Russian mind to
assimilate it. There was
nothing
but a Latin
handbook,
dry
and
unintelligible;
and scholasticism
has thus
always
been caricatured in
Russia,
so
that it is
easy
to understand
why
it fell into dis
favour,
and is still
regarded
with
contempt by
men
of the
highest intelligence. Philosophy
became a
synonym
for
incoherence,
and under such conditions
it was bound to
perish,
and its final
disappearance
was effected
by
the reform of
1840,
which
required
it to be
taught
in Russian and not in Latin.
The
name, indeed,
continued to
appear
in the
syllabus,
and no one noticed that it stood for
nothing.
We
can
hardly say
that
philosophy
disappeared,
for
it had never been
anything
but a name in Russia.
Very
few
perceived
the
danger
of an education
that filled the brain with
knowledge
without culti
vating
the intellect. Words learnt
by
heart,
lists
of
events, etc.,
cannot
replace
human
thought,
and the least
spark may
cause an
explosion
where
gunpowder
is
loosely
stored.
Tchadaiev wrote: "Where are our
scholars,
our thinkers ? Who
amongst
us has ever
thought
at all and who is
thinking
for us
to-day
?" He
was in a
pessimistic
mood when he said:
"
There
is
something
in our blood averse to all true
progress.
We live
only
that our remote
descendants,
who
40
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
understand what it
is,
may
learn a
great
lesson from
us." But
perhaps
he did not
exaggerate
when he
remarked to his
contemporaries:
"
Isolated as we
are in the
world,
we have
given
it
nothing,
we have
taught
it
nothing;
we have not added a
single
idea
to the
body
of human
thought
;
we have contributed
nothing
to the
progress
of the human
mind,
and we
have
disfigured
all that this
progress
has bestowed
on us. Since the first moment of
our social exist
ence,
nothing
has emanated from us for the common
good
of
mankind;
not one useful
thought
has been
produced by
the barren soil of our
country
;
not one
great
truth has flashed out from our midst
;
we never
have taken the trouble to
imagine anything
our
selves,
and from what others have
imagined
we have
borrowed
only deceptive appearances
and useless
luxury."
This
passage, unfortunately,
was
brought
to the
notice of Nicholas
I.,
with terrible results. The
Tsar wrote on the
margin
of the
manuscript
three
words
only:
"
Is he mad ?" but the courtiers went
further,
and Tchadaiev was forthwith
deprived
of
all his
degrees
and
appointments.
The Court
physician
was ordered to visit him
daily
to
report
on his mental
condition,
until the count was reduced
to
writing
the
Apology of
a
Madman,
dedicated to
the
Emperor.
Under the burden of his misfortunes
Schelling
s
pupil
turned his attention to the
study
of Chris
tianity,
and there can be no doubt that what he
wrote then
regarding
the universal influence of
Christ and His work contributed towards the
TOLSTOI AND TCHADAIEV 4*
conversion to Catholicism of his old
pupil,
Prince
Gagarin.
The
latter,
who
subsequently
became
a
Jesuit,
did much to restore his master
s
reputation
by publishing
a selection from the
works
of
this first Russian thinker. At the
present
time
Tchada
iev,
once
regarded
as a
maniac,
is studied,
admired,
and
respected,
almost
as if he were
a
prophet.
Soloviev had much in common with Tchadaiev,
though
he went
further,
and rendered
the ideas,
derived from his
predecessor,
more
precise
and
complete.
Soloviev concerned himself
with
syn
thesis and
deductions;
Tchadaiev
was contented
to
express
his
occasionally very
remarkable
in
tuitions
regarding
the
philosophy
of
history.
Let
us consider two or three instances in which he served
as a model to Soloviev.
On the
subject
of the
dignity
of
thought
before
and after the time of Christ he wrote:
"
There
is
nothing
more
simple
than the
glory
of
Socrates,
the
only
man in the ancient world to die for his
convictions. This
unique example
of heroism could
not but amaze the men of his nation
(materialistic
Greeks).
But is it not foolish for us to misunder
stand him as
they
did,
when we have seen whole
nations
lay
down their life for the sake of truth ?"
In
1898
Soloviev wrote:
"
By
his death Socrates
displayed
all the moral force of which
pure humanity
is
capable; anything
further
requires
the
super
natural
strength
of Him who has
power
to rise
again
to
everlasting
life. The weakness and down
fall of the divine Plato show that man cannot
42 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
make
himself
superhuman by
means of
thought,
genius,
and moral
purpose;
none but a God-man
can do
this."
Tchadaiev was fond of
tracing
Christ s influence
upon non-Christians,
and
says:
"
No one can have
a
clear
idea of the
great
work of
redemption,
nor
comprehend
the
mysteries
of Christ s
reign
on
earth,
unless he sees the action of
Christianity
wherever
the
Saviour s
name is
uttered,
and realizes that His
influence affects
every
mind
which,
in one
way
or
another,
is
brought
into contact with His doctrines."
This
line of
thought
led to a universalist or Catholic
conclusion,
which
inevitably
had
something
to do
with
Prince
Gagarin
s
conversion,
and which was
to
Soloviev a source of
inspiration.
Elsewhere
Tchadaiev writes:
"
Nothing
more
plainly
reveals
the
divine
origin
of this
religion
than this character
istic of
absolute
universality,
which enables it to
affect men in
every possible way, taking possession
unawares of their
minds,
dominating
and
controlling
them,
even
when
they
seem to resist most
stoutly,
by
introducing
to them truths
previously
unknown,
by inspiring
emotions hitherto
unfelt,
and
imparting
thoughts
that
bring
them,
though they
know it
not,
into the
general
order."
Russians of the
present day
call Soloviev the first
national
philosopher,
but
philosophical
reflection
had at least been
attempted by
his
predecessor,
Count
Tchadaiev, who, however,
long
remained
unappreciated,
and died in
1856,
when the man
who was to win him
recognition
was
only
three
years
old. In 1862 the Archimandrite
professor
Feodor
TOLSTOI AXD TCHADAlEV
43
was
expelled
from the ranks of the
clergy
for
having
expressed opinions tinged
with Tchadaiev
s
philo
sophy.
After Tchadaiev there were a few
poets,
novelists,
and some
sincerely religious
men like
Khomiakov,
the elite of Orthodox Russia in the middle of the
nineteenth
century,
who studied the
aspirations
of
the Slavs. At first
sight
the Slavs are a
quiet
race,
very
uniform in
character,
but in
reality they
are restless and varied. Their
feelings
are in a kind
of
irregular
ebb and
flow,
and sudden storms follow
long periods
of calm. Outbursts of
rage
in in
dividuals and rebellions
among
the masses are rare,
but terrible when
they
occur. There is still an
underlying
current of barbarism and fanaticism
in the race.
Many
students have been contented
with a
superficial
examination of the Russian
character;
they
are struck
by
the
spirit
of
apathy
and
resignation,
and do not fathom the
depth
of
hidden
feeling.
Yet it is in the restless subcon-
sciousness that storms
arise;
and
there,
for the last
sixty years,
a
steady
movement has been
going
on
f
very
slow at
first,
but
becoming
more
perceptible
year by year;
the
hoary
mass of ancestral traditions
is
slowly
but
surely yielding
to the
pressure
of the
Western
nations,
and more than once it has seemed
on the
point
of
giving way altogether,
as
though
the house had been built on
sand,
and not on a rock.
A
spectacle
such as this
impels
men to reflect.
At the end of the nineteenth
century
several Russians
attempted
to
philosophize,
some with considerable
success,
but
their influence was invariably limited
44
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
to a narrow
circle,
and of them all Soloviev alone is
widely
known. In
spite
of the attacks of
jealous
rivals,
his fame now
surpasses
that of all the
rest,
and he tends to
eclipse
them
altogether.
For a
long
time there was in Russia much
op
position
to Soloviev s
prestige
and
activity
in the
direction of reform. Towards the middle of the
nineteenth
century
utilitarians and
Utopians
formed
two
antagonistic camps,
and,
in
spite
of all remon
strances on the
part
of some few serious
thinkers,
they adopted
two
opposite
lines of
action,
both
equally
extreme and intolerant. The one
party
aimed at
copying
the Western
nations,
and was
known as that of the
Occidentalists,
whereas the
Slavophile party clung
to its own national traditions.
The latter refused to have
anything
to do with the
West,
or to abandon
any
ancestral
custom,
and so
it
enjoyed proud
isolation both in
politics
and
religion,
and insisted
upon
absolute
immobility
in
education and
legislation.
It called itself the
Nationalist
party,
and
although
it could not
require
all its adherents to be
believers,
it forced
them,
by
its veneration for the
past,
to
struggle
in defence of
national and anti-Roman
Orthodoxy.
A decided
but
judicious
scheme of social and
religious
reform
had been
already
drawn
up by
a few
clear-sighted
politicians,
some reformers who understood the true
interests of their
country
and some sincere Christians.
All these desired to
give
fresh life to national
thought
and
activity by bringing
them into touch
with
the best elements of Western
life,
if it
could
TOLSTOI AND TCHADAlEV
45
be done
gradually
and without
causing any
violent
upheaval.
These reformers
quickly
drew
upon
themselves the
hostility
of the extreme Nationalists.
At the
beginning
of their
conflict,
members of both
parties
continued to meet in
society,
but in course
of time the most
noisy
and violent
spirits prevailed
over men who held more moderate
opinions. Being
confronted with the most
bigoted Slavophiles,
the
other
party inevitably
went further in the
opposite
direction,
and in its turn
displayed
more enthusiasm
than wisdom. This was
deeply regretted by
the
prudent
members of the
party,
but after 1860 their
influence waned
entirely.
The
programme put
forward
by
the Occidentalists
was,
in its
way,
as
simple
as that of the most rabid
Slavophiles.
Under the
pretext
of evolution and
progress,
it aimed at a universal overthrow of the
existing
state of affairs. It made
positivism
its
excuse for violent efforts to
destroy authority
and
level all
inequalities;
there was to be no
tchin,
no
Tsar,
no
empire,
and the
liberty
of the individual
was to take the
place
of
organized society.
The
leaders of the Occidentalist movement had
lately
proclaimed
their wish to have no
purely
national
Church,
fatally
enslaved to the civil
power.
Those
who claimed to be their followers declared that
they
would not have
any
Church at all. The
"
Young
Liberals,"
both doctrinaires and revolu
tionaries,
condemned alike
every
form of
Christianity,
resisted
every sign
of a Christian
spirit,
and went so
far as to assert
dogmatically,
in the name of their
party,
the
incompatibility
of science and faith.
46
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
They
held that the modern
spirit produced by
positivism
would
destroy
all
religion,
but
especially
all the
religions
known as
positive.
Most of the
Slavophile party
were connected with the Govern
ment,
and thus
they
were
supported by
the force
of the State and the influence of the State
Church;
they
traded
upon
the traditional
passivity
of the
masses.
The Liberals
occupied
almost all the chairs at
the
Universities,
and so
possessed
a means of
propaganda
valuable
everywhere,
but of almost
incalculable
importance
in a
country
where all
other free manifestation of
thought
is
proscribed.
They
were the scientific
party,
and had
every
opportunity
of
appealing
to the critical tastes of
an
aristocracy
which had come into contact with
Western
nations,
of
stirring up
excitement
among
noisy
or frivolous
students,
and of
taking
the lead
among
a half-educated
middle-class,
that followed
them like a flock of
sheep. Open
hostilities soon
broke
out,
and the two
parties engaged
in skirmishes
almost
every day.
Their chiefs conceived a
deadly
hatred of one another the
expression
is not ex
aggerated
and
only
the more moderate were
satisfied with
sending
their rivals to
Siberia,
whilst
the rank and file in each
camp
assumed an attitude
of bitter
antagonism.
Men of the same
nation,
who
hardly
knew one
another,
were
always ready
to welcome and to
spread any calumny likely
to
bring
their
opponents
into
disrepute
or ridicule.
They
were divided on
every point
save one
hostility
to Rome. Rome
TOLSTOI AND TCHADA!EV
47
insisted
upon
the
universality
of the
Church,
whereas the Russian national
spirit
was determined
to
enforce
everywhere,
even in the service of
God,
the isolation of one chosen race. This
principle
was
described as racial
independence.
Rome stood
at the head of the most
vigorous
and
prolific organi
zation of
Christians,
and the boldest leaders of
Russian
liberalism were bent
upon destroying
Christianity
root and branch.
"
Resistance to the
encroachments of Rome
"
was the
only
war-cry
raised
by
all
Russians,
regardless
of
party, though
the truces between them
became less
frequent,
and of shorter
duration,
as
time went on.
Otherwise the line of division was
unbroken,
and
there was no via
media between the two extreme
parties;
unbelievers and Orthodox alike
adopted
as their motto the words
"
He that is not with me
is
against
me
"words
intelligible enough
when
uttered
by
One whose
wisdom is
infallible,
but almost
blasphemous
when used to
support
the institutions
of a man
like Peter the Great or
indigenous super
stitions. Yet
neither
Liberals nor
Slavophiles
troubled about such
considerations,
and did not
hesitate on
every
occasion to
employ
this
imperious
and
autocratic
formula.
Vladimir
Soloviev
felt the
incongruity
more than
once,
and often
complained
bitterly
that in each
camp
theory
and
practice
were in
constant conflict
;
but his
complaints
for a
long
time
attracted no
attention.
Even
when this
contradiction was
pointed out,
no
one
troubled about it. Was
party
4
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
spirit
to be
put
aside for such a trifle ? What did
contradictions matter ? Each was
fighting
for his
own
ideas,
and that was
enough.
Could
they
be
required
to search
deeply
into these ideas and
bring
them into
harmony,
and then take them as a rule
for
conduct ? Such were the
replies given
to
Soloviev.
The tactics and
systems
of both
parties
were
indeed
incoherent and
contradictory,
but no one
seemed disturbed or
surprised
at it. In
spite
of
their claims to
stability,
the
Slavophiles strayed
into
unforeseen
paths
and
pursued
in all directions
incongruous
traces of a
past
that had never had
any
real existence. Their vivid
imaginations
caused
the
imperfections
of the true
past
to
disappear,
and,
with
complete disregard
of
chronology, they
viewed
it in a manner both
historically
inaccurate and
logically
incoherent.
They
had to select certain
features of the
past
for
revival,
and the selection
was carried on
secretly;
the features that did not
find favour were
rejected unconditionally.
For
instance,
the most ardent admirers of all the national
traditions of
Christianity
tried to crush with their
anathemas and
judicial
decisions certain Christian
sects,
essentially
Slav,
that were known as Staro-
veres,
and consisted of Old Ritualists or Old
Believers.
On the other
hand,
striding
across the
centuries,
they put
in
juxtaposition
all the remains that took
their
fancy; they dug up
relics of
bygone ages,
and
imagined
that,
by
dint of
decking
an old trunk
with flowers stored
up
in some herbarium since the
TOLSTOI AND
TCHADAtEV
49
tenth
century, they
could
impart
to the tree a life
that should be
unchanging
and eternal.
There were similar
contradictions
among
the
extreme
Neo-Occidentalists,
who would fain have
cut down the tree in
order, forsooth,
to
give
more
freedom to its
parts,
and more life to its cells and
tissues.
They spoke only
of
evolution,
but the
changes
that
they
desired would have involved dis
integration. They
wished to make
progress,
but
the absolute
equality,
that
they
aimed at
imposing
upon
all,
would have killed all
spontaneity
and
hindered all
development
and movement.
Soloviev s influence
gradually
affected both
groups
of combatants. We shall see later on what furious
opposition
he encountered from the militant
party
when he
began
his
work;
but before we
consider
these
struggles,
and his task in the
capacity
of
peace
maker,
we must see
how,
through
the events that
formed his
character,
Providence
prepared
him to
understand and
help
his
fellow-countrymen.
CHAPTER III
EARLY INFLUENCES
SOLOVIEV S
family
surroundings
and the social
conditions under which his childhood
was
passed
prepared
him for the task that
lay
before him. He
grew up during
a
great
crisis of national
thought,
and his
precocious
experience
enabled
him
fully
to understand the
aspirations
and sorrows
of his
people.
An
early
initiation into such matters
is
dangerous
for men of
average ability,
but most
valuable to those of
higher intelligence.
It
prepares
them to influence those around them in a manner
that
may
be both
very
effectual
and
very op
portune.
Vladimir,
the second son of
Serge
Mikhailovitch
Soloviev,
the first and most
painstaking
Russian
historian,
was born on
January
16, 1853.
His
father,
then
thirty-three years
of
age,
had
just
published
the first volumes of the
great
work that
he continued until his death : The
History of
Russia
from
the Most Remote Times
(until 1780).
In
1896
Vladimir wrote a
touching
article in
memory
of
his
father,
from which we shall derive some
personal
information. His merits as an historian
are summed
up by
his son in a few
eloquent
words:
"
My
father
50
EARLY
INFLUENCES
51
had a
passionate
affection for
Orthodoxy, science,
and his
native
land."
On his
mother s
side
Vladimir was
connected
with the
family
of the Ukraine
philosopher
Skovorod.
Her
name was
Polyxene
Vladimirovna
Romanov,
and she
survived until
June,
1909.
Vladimir s
grandfather,
Mikhail
Vassilievitch
Soloviev,
was
a
priest
of the
Orthodox
Church. The
boy
was
brought
up
in the
principles
of
primitive
Slavo
philism
until he entered the
Gymnasium
at
Moscow
in
1864,
when his
surroundings
underwent a com
plete
change.
Although
the book had been con
demned
by
the
censor,
Biichner s Force and
Matter
was
being
studied
enthusiastically by young
Russians,
and Soloviev
secretly
read it in
German;
afterwards he read
Strauss,
and then
Renan s
Vie de
Jesus
in
French.
As
early
as
1867
he cast aside
Christianity
and
all faith in the
spiritual life,
and wrote:
"
Biichner s
catechism of
science
prevailed
over the
religious
catechism
compiled by
Philaretus."
It was a
childish
judgment,
and its
deliberate
reversal at
a later
date
revealed a
maturity
of
thought
un
usual in one so
young.
Until this
change
of
opinion
took
place,
the
boy
had no
religious
convictions.
On
August 18,
1872,
when he was
nineteen,
he
wrote:
"
At the
age
of
thirteen or
fourteen I was a
zealous
materialist,
and
puzzled
how
there
could
be
intelligent
people
who were at the same
time
Christians. I
accounted for this
strange
fact
by
supposing
that
they
were
hypocrites,
or that
there
was a
kind of
madness
peculiar
to clever
men."
5
2 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
This
boy
of fourteen
refused to take
part
in
any
religious
act,
even at
home,
and
regarded
this re
fusal as a
point
of honour.
His father knew him
well,
and was careful
to avoid
taking any
sudden
step
in
dealing
with
him;
he uttered
no
reproaches,
and
only
insisted
upon
the serious
nature of the
problem
of
life,
urging
him to beware of rash
decisions.
The
boy
undoubtedly
considered
all
arguments
for and
against
materialism,
and
yielded
at last to
objections
that had more
weight
than the
unscientific
reasoning
of men like Buchner
and
Renan.
Thus
by
taking
his son s difficulties
seriously, Serge
Soloviev
delivered
him from them.
A
strange
kind of intellectual
precocity
occurs
sometimes
among
the Northern nations,
and this
little Russian
of fourteen
endured
religious agony
such as St.
Augustine
felt before his conversion.
Like the
great
Latin
Doctor,
to whom he was eventu
ally
to owe so
much,
the
young
Slav,
faced
by
the
two
problems
regarding
matter
and the existence
of
evil,
had recourse
to a kind of Manichean
philo
sophy,
which German
pessimists,
and
especially
Schopenhauer,
inculcated.
He saw further than
his fellow-students,
who almost all
adopted practical
materialism
and the
delights
of
positivism.
They
cared
little for theories,
and were contented
to have
at hand
a few
aphorisms,
just
enough
to excuse
their
conduct.
This lack of interest
as to the truth
shocked Soloviev,
who once for all made
up
his
mind
to
respect
truth
always
and to sacrifice
every
thing
to it. His devotion
to truth was not un
rewarded.
EARLY INFLUENCES 53
It is worth while to trace the
path
a most
remarkable one for a child
by
which he came
back to
religion.
A mind
poisoned by
materialism
often needs
philosophy
as an antidote before it
can be converted. German
sophistry
had obscured
Soloviev s
intellect,
so that he had come to
accept
nothing except
on the evidence of his
senses,
and
to
recognize nothing
as real
except
matters still
incompletely
differentiated,
and ever
tending through
world
processes
to a state of
yet
more calamitous
evil. Where could a
remedy
be discovered for this
malady
? He found it in
Spinoza,
whose works
he read at the
age
of
fifteen,
and who was to him
what Plotinus and the Platonic school had been
to St.
Augustine.
The
reality
of the
spiritual
life and the
necessary
existence of
God,
that he had
recently rejected
as absurd
hypotheses,
now
suddenly
were seen to be
firmly
established,
and his con
version
began.
Four
years
later,
on the
subject
of the
"
Orthodox materialists of Biichner s
school,"
he writes:
"
The
logical absurdity
of their
system
is
apparent,
and the more rational materialists
have
adopted positivism,
which is
quite
another
sort of
monster,
by
no means
despicable.
As to
materialism,
it has never had
anything
in common
with reason or
conscience,
and is a fatal
product
of the
logical
law which reduces ad absurdum the
human mind divorced from divine truth."
At the
age
of
nineteen,
when he wrote the above
words,
Soloviev had
definitely
taken
up
the
study
of
philosophy.
The choice had not been made
hastily.
On
leaving
the
Gymnasium
he had
54
VLADIMIR SOLOV1EV
achieved such success in the
faculty
of
physical
science and mathematics at the
University
of
Moscow,
and seemed to have so
great
an
aptitude
for
science,
that both
professors
and students
foretold that he would soon
occupy
the chair of
palaeontology. Suddenly,
however,
he found that
natural science threw but little
light
on the
mysteries
of human
life,
and was
incapable
of
consoling,
guiding
and
saving
souls,
whilst Russia stood in
such
urgent
need of
consolation,
guidance
and
salvation.
Consequently
he abandoned science and
turned to
philosophy,
not in a dilettante
spirit,
but in that of an
apostle,
for he felt himself called
to an
intellectual
apostolate,
and determined to
study
and
think,
not as a scholar or
dreamer,
but
in
order to
help
and teach others.
Art,
thought,
and
poetry practised simply
for
their own sake filled Soloviev
with
horror,
as
being
selfish
amusements. He was an
artist,
a
thinker,
and a
poet,
but
always
for the sake of
others,
and
from the
beginning
of his conversion he made it
his aim to live for
others,
and to think for the love
of God and the
good
of souls. Later on he ex
pressed
his aims in the
graphic phrase:
"
He will
be saved who has saved others."
But,
it
may
be
asked,
was not his conversion attended
by
more
dangers
than his materialistic errors ?
Spinoza
s
pseudo-divinity
is a bottomless
abyss,
and men of
vigorous
intellect have been overwhelmed
by
the
mysterious
fascination of its
half-lights,
and
by
the
majesty
of its
shadows,
that are
always vague
and
uncertain in their
logical development.
Must not
EARLY INFLUENCES 55
an
attempt
to fathom these
depths
be
fraught
with
peril
to a
boy
as enthusiastic
and unbalanced
as
Soloviev then was ?
No;
at the
age
of sixteen he could resist
Spinoza
s
charm,
and
perceive
and condemn his exclusive
apriorism,
and,
whilst
appreciating
his master
s
rigorous
method,
he asked himself whether it were
legitimate
in its
origin.
He had recourse to other
teachers,
and ere
long
his
philosophical
and
religious
training brought
him to
accept
the transcendent
nature
of God and His
personality.
He
always
retained
an
appreciation
of
Spinoza
s
practical
methods,
and
justified
it
by
his own
experience.
In
1897
he wrote
that
"
in this
period
of
unintelligent
empiricism
or narrow
criticism,
certain formulae
of the
Ethics,
expounded
to an audience
consisting
of Russian
positivists,
would
effectually
rouse them
from the slumber of materialism.
Contact with the
de Deo would be a revelation to
many
minds,
and
would almost constrain them to
adopt
the attitude
that bents us all in face of the Absolute
viz.,
the
attitude of
humility,
which is the
prelude
of
every
conversion."
During
Soloviev s
youth,
whilst he
lapsed
into
unbelief,
and then
regained
his
faith,
party spirit
increased in
Russia,
and
young
men and even
children were affected
by
it. In a town like Moscow
no one could
ignore
or be indifferent to the
struggle,
and all were forced to
range
themselves on one side
or the
other,
until
practically
all educated Russians
were divided into two
groups
of
approximately
the
56
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
same
size,
representing
the two lines of
thought
already
described. At first the forces were in
equilibrium, but,
as the strife
continued between
the hostile
parties,
the more violent
spirits monopo
lized the direction of
each,
as is
generally
the case
in times of crisis. Moderate
Slavophiles,
such as
Kirievsky,
Khomiakov,
and Aksakov sank into
insignificance
in
comparison
with men like
Katkov,
Strakhov,
and
Danilevsky,
and it was not
long
before the Sacred
Synod passed
completely
under
the
oppressive
and intolerant
sway
of
Pobedonostsev,
its
procurator-general.
The same
thing happened
in the Liberal
party,
and the
years 1862-1864
witnessed both the
glories
of
Katkov,
the
Neo-Nationalist,
and the first
triumphs
of
Tchernitchevsky.
Under the latter s
leadership
a small but
noisy
section of the Occi-
dentalists
adopted
revolutionary principles,
and
claimed to be heard because all Russia
supported
them. Even the wiser members of the
party
seemed
compromised,
and the
Slavophiles rejoiced
accordingly.
For a time Herzen still
continued to
rise;
after
wards
Lavrov,
Kropotkine,
and Bakounine.
Out
breaks of violence
occurred,
which were
sternly put
down
;
and no one could foresee what would
follow.
Russia has been
profoundly
affected
by
the
events
of the
years 1900-1909,
but it has stood
firm,
and
the worst that has
happened
is
trifling
in
comparison
with what
might
have been
anticipated
from the
mutual
misunderstanding
of
prominent
men
between
1860 and
1880,
when there seemed
every
probability
EARLY INFLUENCES
57
of the conflict of
thought leading
to civil war.
Had this
actually
broken
out,
there can be no doubt
that it would have been a war of
extermination,
so
great
were the accumulated
grievances,
the
long-
repressed
enmities,
and the needs of
personal
defence. To
intelligent spectators
the
"
executions
"
in Poland in
1863 appeared
to be
merely
a
prelude,
a
comparatively
mild
rehearsal,
of the
great
drama
in which Russians would
fight against
Russians.
Unknown to the
Imperial
Government
of
Russia,
the
insurrectionary
Government of Poland remained
in the
capital
of the
kingdom, using
the
University
of Varsovie as its
headquarters.
Bands of
peasants
were under the direct command of the students
and the indirect control of the
professors;
and
many
people expected
similar
organizations
to be formed
throughout
the
Empire.
The
struggle
in Russia
would
be,
they thought,
far
longer
and fiercer than
that in
Poland,
as the field of battle was at once
much
larger
and more subdivided. Enemies would
meet face to face on
every square
mile of the bound
less
plains;
men would
engage
in countless
single
combats,
and never be able to withdraw into a
well
entrenched
camp
;
and both sides would
display
the same
endurance,
the same
quiet
enthusiasm,
the same
passive
obedience to their
chiefs,
the same
calm fatalism in face of
death,
the same
mystical
devotion to their
cause,
and the same determination
to kill or be killed.
From 1860 to 1880 this civil war was
continually
on
the
point
of
breaking
out,
and
pessimistic
observers
foretold the
approaching
disturbance,
58
VLADIMIR SOLOVISV
if not the total
destruction,
of the Russian
Empire
before another
fifty years
had
passed.
During
fifteen
years
there was a constant
suc
cession of deeds of
violence,
beginning
with Kara-
kozov s
attempted
assassination of the Tsar
in
April,
1866,
and
lasting
until the
explosion
which
destroyed part
of the Winter
Palace,
and buried
under the ruins a hundred soldiers of the Finland
regiment (February 17, 1880).
Later
still,
on
March
13,
1881,
Alexander
II.,
the
Liberator,
was
assassinated.
In
discussing
these fifteen
years,
M.
Leroy-Beaulieu
remarks that
twenty
or
thirty
resolute
young
men,
having
entered into a
compact
with
death,
held in check the Government
of the
largest Empire
in the world. Their
audacity
found
support
in a kind of tacit connivance
on the
part
of the nation. The horrible nature of their
crimes
ought
to have roused the masses
against
them,
but the
short-sighted severity
with which
these crimes were
punished
bestowed
a certain
amount of
prestige upon
their
perpetrators.
Where
a few students were
guilty,
thousands
suffered,
and
where a few officials incurred
suspicion,
hundreds
were dismissed.
Hence there was no lack of
recruits to the
party
of
malcontents,
and
many
deluded
people
received
an
impetus
in the direction
of
revolution,
whilst their
hasty
actions
strengthened
the extreme
party
of Orthodox
Slavophiles.
Thus
the
irreconcilable
differences
between the two
schools
of
thought
were ever
increasing;
the
gulf
between
them
grew
wider and
wider,
and no one
attempted
to
bridge
it over. Each
party upheld
ftABLY tJSfSJrESGES
59
a.
|P^fciiu"i
of trnth.
but was so much dazzled
by
its
brilliancy
that
they
never even
attempted
to con-
tenpiate,
as a whole, the
jewel
to which their
frag-
meat
belonged.
The
war-cry
of one
party
was
"
the
dignity
of the individual, that of the other.
"
the
sanctity
of
authority.
The former failed to
see that
th<*fr
materialism could not account for
this,
dignitv; they
overlooked the fact that,
where
Itareis no
authority,
there is no
safeguard
for mutual
nspect;
and,
above all,
they forgot
that men in
authoritv were still human
personalities.
The
others laid too much stress
upon Authority,
and their
statements,
though
fair
enough
if restricted to the
primary
source of
power.
And the
obligation
which
mak.es
just
laws
binding upon
men s conscience,
were faisuied bv their exclusive and absolute
whatever is not
Slavophile.
The assassination of Alexander 11. on March,
rj,
1681,
disarmed neither
party;
he was killed
by
one and
avenged by
the other. Crime is
unpro
ductive,,
and excessive chastisement effects no
lanedy
;
wounds are not cured
by
bloodshed.
Tlie
malady
that infected men s minds remained
wadetected.
and no one
thought
of
discovering
And
what was
right.
Both
parties
were
to thwart
by
violence
every unpleasant
application
of ideas held
by
their
opponents.
If
this slate of mutual
exasperation
had continued,
its
logical consequences
would have
developed,
and the
ent
might
have
brought
about a
60 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
disaster. For
instance,
the troubles that followed
the war in the East
would,
if
they
had occurred a
few
years
earlier,
have assumed
quite
another
form. Between
1905
and
1907
the disturbances
that took
place,
and the measures
employed
to
repress
them,
were mild in
comparison
with what
had been foretold
twenty years previously
;
immense
progress
had been made since 1880.
No one
can,
or
attempts
to,
deny
that
great
progress
has been
made,
but what caused it ?
The causes are
certainly complex;
men were
weary
of continual acts of
violence;
they
had learnt
more,
and
gained experience; they
had come into
closer contact with Western
Europe,
and their
dreams had been
dispelled by
the force of realities.
All these
things
facilitated a better mutual under
standing
between rulers and
ruled,
and
encouraged
those who advocated the
adoption
of a less hostile
attitude towards the Catholic Church. But who
taught
Russians of the
present century
to hold
broader views ? To their
parents
the ideas of
authority
and
liberty
seemed so
fatally antagonistic
that there was no
possible
via media between
Orthodoxy
and unbelief. Yet now it is
plain
that
an
agreement
can be effected between
authority
and
liberty,
if
they
are well
apportioned.
Such a
reconciliation is
necessary
and even
easy.
A man
can be at once a scholar and a
believer,
and the
human conscience can resent the
stagnation pro
duced
by
Oriental
Orthodoxy
without
denying
Christ; and,
finally
it is
possible
to love the Catholic
Church without
any
loss of
patriotism.
EARLY INFLUENCES 61
To what is this transformation due ? We do not
hesitate to ascribe
it,
to a
very large
extent,
to
Vladimir Soloviev s
example,
work,
and
posthumous
influence.
That Soloviev s influence is
very great
is
proved
by
the evidence of
facts,
as well as
by
written
testimony. Many
Russians
acknowledge
it,
and
still
more,
though they
hesitate to confess
it,
are
affected
by
it
indirectly
and almost
unconsciously.
It is a remarkable fact that Soloviev had recourse
to no
compromises
or half-truths in order to effect
a
rapprochement
between the two
parties
that were
apparently quite
irreconcilable. He never
thought
of
forming
a
party
himself,
and
consequently
all
were
disposed
to listen to
him;
and
nothing
was
further from his intentions than to meddle with
politics,
and,
by
thus
holding
aloof,
he was able to
accomplish
more than could have been effected
by
ill-timed intervention. Frank
independence
was
the
keynote
of his
power.
He loved truth for its
own
sake,
and welcomed it wherever he found it.
In so
doing
he
exposed
himself to ostracism on one
side and anathemas on the
other,
but both were
alike to
him,
if
only
truth could thus be discovered
more
completely
and stated in all its fulness.
He desired the whole
truth,
and abhorred
exclusivisms to such a
degree
that the
very
titles
of his books reveal his
tendency
to exalt the
integrism
of truth in
opposition
to formalism.
He was an
integrist,
but he was
honest;
and
although
his
plain speaking
as a moralist offended
62 VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
all
parties
at
first,
his
honesty
won them over in
the end.
Professor Bruckner of Berlin writes as follows of
Soloviev in his
History of
Russian Literature :
"
Soloviev,
a moralist and
theologian,
is one of the
most
interesting representatives
of modern Russia
and its intellectual fermentation. He is fearless
and
quite
devoid of all
self-seeking
in his ardent
zeal for
making
the truth known. ... In an
age
of absolute
positivism
and indifference to all theories
and
metaphysics
in
general,
his
great
merit has
been to
bring
back men s attention to the eternal
problems,
to have
upheld
the
great
moral
principles
in
eloquent
and
poetical language,
with the force
of intense
conviction,
brilliant
dialectic,
and
pro
found
knowledge.
This is his
great
merit,
and it
is
doubly great
in a
country
whose native literature
is
very poor
in works on moral
philosophy,
and
where the
people
are
intellectually
so indolent
[the
German author is
expressing
his own
opinion]
that
they
are satisfied with the merest outlines of
truth;
for
instance,
they
welcomed
positivism
between
1860 and
1870
and Marxism in
1890
and the follow
ing years."
Soloviev s influence was
partially
felt for a
long
time before it reached its full
strength
in
1900,
the
year
of his
death,
and it still continues to
increase. In
1907
Hoffmann,
a
competent
critic,
wrote:
"
One of Tolstoi s stoutest
opponents
in the
department
of
philosophy
and
religion
is
Soloviev,
who has
acquired great respect
and
popularity
in
his own
country.
He has taken
up
a
position
EARLY INFLUENCES
63
differing
from Tolstoi s on two essential
points,
for
he adheres to the historical
conception
of Chris
tianity
and to the Nicaean
creed,
and
rejects
the
axiom of Tolstoism that forbids resistance to evil.
No one can read Soloviev s last
work,
completed
only
a few
days
before his
death,
without indescrib
able emotion. His historical
insight
is so
profound,
so
clear,
and so
penetrating
. . . and is
plainly
the outlook of a
believer,
a true follower of Him
Who said:
Ego
et Pater unum sumus. At this
point
criticism is
silenced,
for love
begins."
The same note is struck in the Slovo of March
13/26,
1909,
in an article
by
Vassili Goloubiev on a lecture
given by
N. A.
Kotliarevsky
:
"
The name of Vladimir
Soloviev is
becoming
more and more
popular.
No
one can
begin
to read his works without
yielding
to their charm and
loving
the author. As a theo
logian
he believed in a
personal
God and in the truth
of
Christianity.
He made it his aim to reveal the
living
Christ to our
generation,
and to
prove
the
reality
of the Christian
spirit
in our modern civili
zation. He had
profound
faith in the other life.
We
accept
this belief as a
dogmatic
formula,
but
what influence has it
upon
our
daily
life ? None at
all,
and this is the cause of our
practical
materialism.
Now
Soloviev,
though living
in the
world,
possessed
most
lively
faith,
and in this
lay
his
originality.
His whole life was ordered so as to
testify
to his
faith in the
divinity
of
Christ,
and
yet
it would be
difficult to
imagine
a more
accomplished
man of
the world than Soloviev. He was to be found where-
ever there was
life;
he was
keenly
interested in
64
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
every aspect
of
life,
in art and
politics,
and even in
the
irrigation
of the
Steppes.
He was not out of
touch with the
things
of earth and his verses are
full of human
feeling.
But at the same time God
was
always present
with
him,
and he was a Christian
in the
highest
sense. This union between worldli-
ness and
spirituality
was the
great mystery
in
his character.
His life was in
keeping
with his
writings."
Hundreds
of similar
quotations
might
be
made,
from authors
differing widely
one from the other.
They
do not
prove
that Soloviev attracted men of
every type.
Furious attacks did indeed
give place
to
esteem,
;md hatred to
respect,
but a man of such
marked
personality
could not fail to arouse contra
diction.
The
opposition
to him died
down,
but did
not
disappear,
and
perhaps
it does more than in
discriminate
enthusiasm
could do to increase his
prestige.
Let us see what his
antagonists say
of him.
Merejkovsky
and
Ossip-Lourie express very
clearly
their
opinions.
The
former,
in a book
bearing
the
title
The Tsar and
Revolution,
bears witness to
Soloviev
s
extraordinary
influence,
which
is,
from
the author
s
point
of
view,
an additional reason for
regretting
his attitude.
Soloviev
had,
he
says,
inspired
the Russian
nation with his moral
teaching;
if he had
chosen,
he could have incited it to revolu
tion,
and that he failed to do so is
regarded by
Merejkovsky
as an
unpardonable
mistake;
"
he
preferred
to become
a Russian
John
the
Baptist,
and to
preach
obsolete
duties
in the desert."
EARLY
INFLUENCES
65
Merejkovsky
seems to have
forgotten
that
John
the
Baptist
attracted
crowds,
in
spite
of
preaching
in
the
wilderness,
and
taught
as a
precursor,
not as
one
recalling
the
past.
M.
Ossip-Louri6
s com
plaints
are more varied. He
pronounces
Soloviev
to be
"
an
extremely
shrewd and
spiritual
dia
lectician,
a
scholar,
a
poet,
and an honest
thinker,
possessing
a
thorough
knowledge
of all the
systems
of
philosophy."
Elsewhere he writes:
"
In
Soloviev
reason and sensation
are in
perfect equipoise;
he is
not an
ecstatic,
and his
mysticism
may
be described
as the
outcome of his
reason,
rather than of his
inward
religious
perception."
"
In his
private
life
he was an
ascetic. ... As a rule the force of the
religious
idea
weakens other intellectual
states,
but this was not the case with
Soloviev,
whose
mental
activity
never
flagged during
his
whole life.
... He was neither
neurotic nor
subject
to
hallucinations,
but
simply contemplative,
and a
fine
thinker." There
was,
however,
one
point
on
which
Ossip-Lourie
differs from
Soloviev,
and it
redounds more to the latter s
credit than all the
praise
lavished
upon
him:
"
Soloviev thinks
that
the salvation of the world will be found in Chris
tianity
and in the union of the
Churches. This
fact
appears
strange,
for he must
undoubtedly
have been
aware of their
conflicts,
and
yet
it is
certain
that in his
mind
Christianity occupies
the
place assigned
by Spinoza
to
Absolute
Substance.
We should
readily accept
Soloviev s
opinions
if he
did not
insist
upon
the
point
that the sole aim of
each
individual and nation was to
participate
in
5
66 VLADIMIR
SOLO VIEV
the life of the universal
Church,
each
according
to his own
particular power
and
capacity.
He
maintains that no union is
possible
among
men
except
in
God,
the
principle
of union."
Members of the
opposite party brought
another
charge against
Soloviev,
and even some of his own
friends share their
opinion.
They speak
of him as
a true
Christian,
but
many stop
short at that
point,
and feel bound to criticize what
they
call his Latinism.
Even Radlov
expresses
some uneasiness on this
subject
in his article on Soloviev s
mysticism,
as
well as in the
biographical
introduction to his
friend s collected works. It is incorrect to
speak
of Soloviev s
Latinism,
and it would be better to
say
that he
possessed
Catholicity
in heart and
mind,
or,
as Father Aurelio Palmieri
puts
it,
"
religious
enthusiasm for the truth and
unity
of Catholicism."
The accusations
brought against
him fall into
two classes. The one
party objected
to him for
holding
antirevolutionary
and Christian views
;
the other
complained
that his
religious
convictions
were too
decidedly
Catholic,
and not
sufficiently
nationalist. This
explains why
he was so
violently
attacked
by
the
extremists,
whose
bigotry
and
intolerance
we have
already
discussed.
Finally,
however,
the
spirit
of intolerance broke down and
its former
champions, recognizing
the bad results
of their exclusive
policy,
listened to
arguments
on the other
side,
and not a few were convinced
of their
justice.
The miracle worked
by
Soloviev is
that two
antagonistic parties
have come to
agree
ment
regarding
him.
They
unite in
admiring
and
EARLY INFLUENCES
67
praising
him,
and even
go
so far as to
proclaim
him to be
"
the
greatest European philosopher
during
the last
quarter
of the nineteenth
century,
and the creator of the first
genuinely
Russian
system
of
philosophy."
Thus those who once
joined
in
opposing
him now
agree
in
extolling
him,
and this
change
of
opinion
marks the
extraordinary
ascendancy
that he has
acquired
over the Slavs.
Palmieri accounts for it as follows:
"
Soloviev
united with his ardent
religious
enthusiasm wonder
ful intellectual
gifts
and
extraordinary learning,
so that he
possessed
the most
vigorous
mind and
the most
generous
heart in modern Russia."
Vogue
writes in similar terms of
"
this Doctor
mirabilis,
one of the most
original figures
of the last
twenty-
five
years;
a
strong
man,
originator
of fresh ideas.
. . . His
vigorous
intellect was
developed by
his
encyclopaedic reading,
his
knowledge
of
every
kind
of
philosophy,
natural
science,
and
languages,
many
of which he
spoke perfectly.
The inward
beauty
of his soul was revealed in his features and
in his
piercing eyes.
. . . He was a
great
man,
and
thoroughly representative
of his race." We
shall see the
justice
of this
opinion
when we have
studied Soloviev s works and character.
CHAPTER IV
SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR
SOLOVIEV S life would seem uneventful were it not
for the
frequent
attacks made
upon
him. It
might
be
interesting
to review these attacks in
detail,
but,
owing
to the
imperfect knowledge possessed
by
Western nations of Russian
affairs,
it would be
necessary
to insert so
many explanations
that it
appears
better
merely
to mention the
principal
events,
with the dates at which
they
occurred.
They
will suffice to outline the
history
of a thinker
who was
always progressive, though
constrained
by
his
very loyalty
to
go slowly
and
cautiously.
Having
done
this,
we shall be in a
position
to
examine the
psychological
reasons for his ever-
increasing
influence.
After his conversion to
Christianity,
before his
twentieth
year,
Soloviev took
up
the
study
of
philosophy.
We have
already
seen what course
of
reading,
what lines of
thought,
and what aims
led him to do this. So
great
was his zeal for work
that at the same time he attended lectures on
history,
philology, physical
science, mathematics,
and the
ology.
His favourite
professors
were P. D. lourke-
vitch and V. D.
Koudriatsev-Platonov,
and he
68
SOLOVIEV
AS PROFESSOR 69
consulted the works of all the chief
philosophers,
both ancient and modern. He read and annotated
in their
original languages
the
writings
of
Plato,
Origen,
Seneca,
St.
Augustine,
Bacon,
Stuart
Mill,
Descartes,
de
Bonald, Kant,
Schopenhauer,
Hegel,
Schelling,
Tchadaiev,
and Khomiakov.
He fre
quently spent
entire
days
and
nights
in
philosophical
reflections,
thus
working
out his own
personal
line of
thought
from the abundant
material at his
disposal.
On November
24, 1874,
he read his first thesis
in
Petrograd.
It was a critical
study,
too
systematic,
perhaps,
but
very
well
thought
out,
of the twofold
evolution which caused
idealism,
as
represented by
Descartes and
Hegel,
and
empiricism,
as
repre
sented
by
Bacon and
Mill,
to
converge
in the
direction of atheistic
positivism, egpistic,
revolu
tionary,
and
pessimistic
in character.
This
thesis,
which was entitled The Crisis in Western
Philosophy,
attracted much
attention,
and
brought
Soloviev into
contact with a
large
number of intellectual
Russians,
who were divided in
opinion regarding
him. His
enthusiastic admirers
pronounced
him to be an
inspired prophet.
Bestoujef-Rioumine,
a
friend,
admirer and rival of
Serge
Soloviev,
wrote:
"
If
to-day
s
hopes
are fulfilled in the
future,
Russia
possesses
a new
genius,
who in manner and
style
resembles his
father,
although
he will
surpass
him.
I have never been conscious of such
prodigious
intellectual force at the
reading
of
any
other thesis."
Opponents
soon came
forward,
for the
repre
sentatives of
philosophy
in Russia were at that
7
VLADIMIR SOLOVIE V
time all
infected with
positivism,
and the thesis
was
plainly
directed
against
them,
as its
secondary
title
showed. Soloviev
replied
to the attacks of
Lessevitch and
Kavelyne,
and for a time
victory
rested with him. A month
later,
when he was
only
twenty-one,
he was
appointed
lecturer in
philosophy
at the
University
of
Moscow,
where his
first course of lectures on
metaphysics
and
positive
science
began
on
January 27, 1875.
The
young
professor
s
introductory
words were characteristic:
"In
every sphere
of
activity,
man thinks
primarily
of
liberty."
This was a bold but seductive state
ment to make before a class of Russian
students,
and the
closing
remark,
expressive
of a wish rather
than an
assertion,
struck the same note:
"
Human
thought
turns
instinctively
in the
right
direction,
towards what will
give
breadth and freedom to
the
knowledge
and life of
man,
and is far from
imposing
obstacles and restrictions."
This allusion to freedom
might
be
supposed
to
refer to a relaxation in the
severity
of the Govern
ment,
but it
really
called for
changes
of
quite
another
kind,
and the
professor proceeded
to
develop
his
argument
as follows : The necessities of existence
impose upon every
man three social
obligations,
economic to enable him to utilize the material
world,
political
to
regulate
his relations with his
fellow-men,
and
religious,
to
put
him in due sub
mission to God.
Why
do we
accept
these social
conditions
only
under constraint ?
Why
should
philosophy reject
them,
whilst
professing
to amelior
ate
them ? Is man
incapable
of
recognizing
in
them
SOLO VIEV AS PROFESSOR 71
a
providential
will,
worthy
of his
voluntary
affection?
On these
arguments
Soloviev
founded his
theory
of
a free
theocracy, by
which he meant a deliberate
and
loving recognition
of God s
supremacy,
in the
voluntary acceptance
of which true
liberty
could
alone
be won.
There was in his
theory
more asceticism
than
danger
to the Government.
At first he was under
stood,
but this was not
always
the
case,
and the
suspicion
of the
ruling
class led to a series of actions
that
brought
Soloviev
s brilliant career
to an
abrupt
end
only
six
years
later. It is true that
this
catastrophe
had been foreshadowed
more than
once
by partial
disgrace
and
long periods
of sus
pension,
during
which he was forbidden to lecture.
This
severity
was the result of the
young
professor
s
extraordinary
success.
From the
very beginning
of his career
he
occupied
the
position
which aston
ished Viscount
de
Vogue
in
1880,
when
everyone
in Russia was
talking
about
"
the Doctor
mirabilis,
who was
delighting
the students
by
his
eloquence
and
personal
charm."
This
testimony given by
a Frenchman
is worth
quoting,
for he describes
vividly
what no one else of his
nationality
had an
opportunity
of
observing.
"
Soloviev,"
he
says,
"
occasionally
achieved
genuine
triumphs,
when
his
eloquence
won the
applause
of all his
pupils.
We used to listen
with alarm to his bold
words,
with much the same sensation as one watches an
acrobat
on the
tight-rope,
wondering
if
any
false
step
would cause his downfall. But no such
thing
occurred. He knew how to lead
his audience
72
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
back to the
religious
ideal,
and reassure the strictest
conservatives;
he avoided
pitfalls
with an innate
skill which
upset
all our
opinions,
and that in a
country
where one can
say nothing
and
everything.
His success was
startling though
short-lived,
for
his lectures were soon
suspended."
Triumphs
of this kind aroused
implacable j ealousy
of the
young professor, many
of whose
colleagues,
feeling
themselves
eclipsed, avenged
themselves
by
intriguing against
him,
though they
were not at
once successful in
suppressing
their rival. In
May,
1875,
after he had lectured for three
months,
he was
suspended
for the first time under the
pretext
of
being appointed
to take
part
in a scientific mission
to London and other towns in Western
Europe.
His absence lasted fifteen
months,
and the solitude
to which he was condemned was a
great
trial to
him,
especially
as his health was
already
undermined
by
overwork. For some time he devoted himself
with almost morbid
energy
to the
study
of
spiritism
and the Cabala. In a letter addressed to Prince
Tsertelev he
explains why
he took
up
this
pursuit;
his
object
was
purely
scientific and
philosophical;
he
hoped
that fresh
light
cast
by spiritistic
phenomena
would be of assistance to him in con
structive
metaphysics;
but,
he added
prudently,
"
I have no intention of
proclaiming
this
aloud;
such a
proceeding
would not
help
me in
attaining
my
desired
end,
and would
only get
me into
trouble."
Some Russian
friends,
resident in
London,
tried
to induce him to take some
rest,
and Soloviev
SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR
73
readily complied
with their wishes and
accepted
an invitation to
spend
an
evening
with them.
His stories added
greatly
to the merriment
of the
conversation,
although they
were
interrupted by
outbursts of nervous
laughter,
which
is often a
sign
of overwork in men who lead studious lives.
Presently
he became
serious,
and
protested
kindly
though energetically against
the
vulgarity
of
thought
and the life of
logical positivists.
Suddenly
a
playful
word
brought
back a smile to his
lips,
and
his animation
prevented
his remonstrances
from
giving
offence. This
style
of conversation
remained
characteristic of him
throughout
life;
he
employed
it
among Anglicans,
who are
always eager
to welcome
Christians
belonging
to the Eastern
Churches,
since
they
wish to effect a
rapprochement
between them
and their own Established Church. So
great
was
the
fancy
that
they
took to Soloviev
that
they
called him
"
the Russian
Carlyle."
After a few hours of
recreation,
Soloviev
always
resumed work with redoubled
energy, feeling
im
pelled
to make
good
the time that he had
just
wasted. If his visit to London had not been cut
short,
he would
probably
have broken down com
pletely;
but at the
beginning
of November he set
out for
Egypt, travelling through
France and
Italy.
It was on this
journey
that he first met Catholic
clergy, though
he did not come into close contact
with them. His
impressions
were not
unfavourable,
for on November
6,
1875,
in
writing
to his
mother,
he
says:
"
From Chambe
ry
to Turin I travelled with
two hundred and
fifty priests
from
Vendee,
who were
74
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
on their
way
to Rome . . .
worthy
men,
some of
them not at all like
Jesuits."
Soloviev was anxious to visit the
Thebaid,
to
learn Arabic and to
study
the
popular religions
of
Egypt.
Before the end of
*
November his Bedouin
guides
had robbed and deserted
him,
but he was not
discouraged
and continued his studies until
March,
1876.
This first
journey beyond
the boundaries of
Russia ended with a month s
stay
in
Italy
and a
fortnight
s visit to Paris. Innumerable
plans
were
floating
in his
mind,
and it was in Paris that he
conceived the idea of
writing
a book on the
principles
of universal
religion,
Abbe Guettee to be his chief
collaborator.
Nothing
came of this
idea,
except
the
production
of Russia and the Universal
Church,
which
aroused Guettee s
fury against
the
"Papist"
Soloviev.
During
his visit to Paris Soloviev called
upon
Renan,
Prince Tsertelev
having expressed
a wish
that led him to do so. As a child he had admired
the author of the
Life of Jesus,
but as a man he
criticized him
severely,
and wrote to the
prince
as
follows:
"
I could not execute
your
commission
except by going
to
Renan," then,
after
giving
Renan s
reply,
Soloviev adds:
"
Perhaps
he was not
speaking
the
truth;
he
gave
me the
general impres
sion of
being
a
vulgar braggart."
On his return Soloviev
thought
Russia a
very
dead-
alive
country,
and,
in a letter to his mother written
on
May 4,
he
says:
"
Petrograd
takes no interest in
important
matters. It is
only
a distant
colony,
whilst
history
would seem to be concerned with
some
place
in Atlantis."
SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR
75
On
resuming
his lectures at
Moscow,
he met with
the same success and the same
opposition
as before.
On
February 14, 1877,
when he was
only twenty-
four,
he was informed that he was
placed temporarily
on the retired list. This time the
posit
ivists were
not his
only
enemies
;
they
were reinforced
by
Katkov
and the
Neo-Slavophile party,
whose ostensible
reason for
attacking
Soloviev was that he had
spoken
in defence of a
colleague
who had fallen into
disgrace.
The real reason was
probably
a sense of
uneasiness
regarding
his
opinions.
In
1877
he had formulated his ideas in a lecture
on The Three Forces. There was
nothing
revolu
tionary
about his
views,
but
they
were not
exclusively
Slavophile,
and this fact was
enough
to rouse
opposition.
He maintained that from the
beginning
the human race had been influenced
by
three
forces
viz.,
a
tendency
to social
union,
a
tendency
to
individualism,
and a
higher tendency
to reverence
God in other individuals and societies.
Any
exclusive
development
of the first
tendency
would
result in
bringing
all men to a dead
level,
to a
uniformity equivalent
to
slavery
and death. The
unchanging
character of Mahometanism is due to
this
cause,
whilst the Western nations are
suffering
in
consequence
of
having exaggerated
the second
tendency,
and the Slavs of the East will live
on,
if
they carry
the third into effect. The
essay
deserves
to be studied. No one can read it without
being
amazed at the narrow-mindedness of those who
could find in it
any ground
for alarm. The
following
quotations
will
give
some idea of its
spirit.
76
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
"
In the West each man s
energy
is
isolated,
since
each claims the
right
to aim at his own
development
to the utmost
limit,
so that
suddenly
this
energy
fails and threatens to
disappear.
. . . The social
organism
of the West is divided into isolated and
mutually
hostile
sections,
which are further sub
divided into their final constituents
viz.,
distinct
personalities.
A
tendency
to individualism
has
dominated all evolution in the
West,
from the time
when German
particularism began
to contend with
Roman authoritativeness. It was
not, however,
until the French Revolution that this individualism
was
regarded
and
proclaimed
as a serious
principle.
It
began by destroying
the
organic groups perform
ing
the vital functions in the
State;
then it trans
ferred the
supreme power
to the
people;
but in the
people
which had
only just
become a
living body,
it took into account
only
the
aggregation
of distinct
individualities,
that were united
by
one
single
bond
viz.,
community
of aims and interests.
Such a
community may
exist,
but it
may
also dis
appear.
. . . Yet there must be in
every society
some ideal
principle
of
unity.
In the Middle
Ages
it was
supplied by
feudal
Catholicism;
the Revolu
tion abolished this ideal without
providing
a sub
stitute. Men talked of
liberty,
but
liberty
is a mode
of
action,
not an end in itself. I wish to have
liberty
of
action,
not to be
impeded,
but this
liberty
cannot
be the final end of
my activity.
. . . Now the
Revolution,
though
it
gave
an absolute
importance
to the individual
elements,
limited their
activity
to the needs of the material order. It denied the
SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR 77
principle
of devotion to the common
good
and of
personal
disinterestedness.
. . .
"
At the
present day
one
thing
is of
supreme
importance
in the West
viz.,
capital;
and
money
is the
only
difference
between the
upper
and
lower
classes.
Socialism,
the
enemy
of the
mid<j
class,
aims at
levelling
this
inequality
in the distribution
of
wealth,
but even
if it
triumphed
without
pro
ducing
a
neo-proletariate
class,
even
if it succeeded
in
effecting
a fair division
of all material
goods
and
an
equal enjoyment
of all the benefits
of
civilization,
it would still not have solved the
problem
of the aim
of human
existence;
in
fact,
it would
only
have
raised the
question
in an
aggravated
form;
and
socialism is no more able to
supply
an answer to it
than
is the whole civilization
of the West
in its
present
condition.
"We are told that science
is to take the
place
of
faith,
but with what does
empirical
science
deal ?
With facts and
phenomena.
I ask
for an
explana
tion of
them,
and all that science
can do
is to sub
ordinate them to other more
general
facts. . . .
Contemporaneous
art
is a
failure;
it no
longer
believes
in the
ideal,
and
being
content
to imitate
and not
create,
it ends in
producing
a caricature.
Without
underestimating
the
progress
made in
science and economics,
we must
rise to a
higher
level.
The
primordial
necessity
of the Russian
nation is
neither to
augment
its
power
nor
suddenly
to
develop
a
wholly
exterior
form of
activity.
Our true
strength
both in our
past
history
and
in our mission
for the
future has
been,
and must ever
be,
our
being superior
78
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
to all national
egotism,
our care not to waste our
best
energy
in lower
regions
of
activity
in a word
our faith in the existence of a
higher
world,
towards
which we stand in the attitude of submission that
befits us. This is the
essentially
Slav characteristic
of the Russian nation. Even the material humilia
tion of our
country
would not
destroy
her
spiritual
force. . . . Let us therefore awaken in our nation
and in ourselves a
positive
consciousness of this
faith. It is the normal result of interior
spiritual
growth;
let us then
go
on,
raising
ourselves above
the
worldly
trifles that
occupy
our
hearts,
and the
would-be scientific
arguments
that
engage
our
thoughts.
When once false
gods
and idols are
expelled
from our souls the true God will enter and
reign
within us."
The
Neo-Slavophile party, though
it
professed
to be
orthodox,
considered that the
Empire
was
endangered by
the
suggestion
of such an ideal.
Their
jealousy
led them to
join
the
positivists
in
their
hostility
to
Soloviev,
and thus
they
were
able to
impose
silence
upon
their too
eloquent
rival.
Some friends of Soloviev s came forward in his
defence,
and their
protests
were so far effectual
that on March
4
he was offered a seat on the Board of
Public Education. This was
only
a
partial repara
tion,
for he was removed from Moscow and cut off
from his
pupils
and
admirers,
with no
opportunity
of
obtaining
new friends. His freedom of
speech
was not restored to
him,
and he was still
regarded
with
suspicion.
No sooner was he installed at
Petrograd
under the immediate control of his
SOLOVIEV AS PROFESSOR
79
superiors,
than he
began
to realize what had
happened.
At first all went
well,
and his
Philosophical
Principles of Integral
Science
appeared
in the
Journal of
the
Ministry of
Education for
1877.
In
1878
he was even allowed to deliver a course of
lectures in a
high
school for
girls
;
and his last
thesis,
A
Critique of
the
Principles of
Exclusivism,
increased
his
reputation
still
further,
though
after this fresh
success he had to
accept
the
position
of
private
tutor at the
University
of
Petrograd.
Once more
he was
employed
in
teaching
at the
University,
but
his term of
office,
although very
remarkable,
was
even shorter than that at Moscow. On November
20, 1880,
he delivered his
opening
lecture on The
Role
of Philosophy
in
History. Sceptics
ask,
he
said,
what
philosophy
has done for the human
race
during
the last
2,500
years.
It has raised
men above material cares and resisted all exclu-
sivisms,
those which absorb man into a
Brahma,
and those which never rise above man. It has
set us free from all the
oppression
of external
force,
it has
put
down all the
pseudo-philosophical
and
degenerate
forms of
Christianity,
and remains the
indispensable
intermediary
between the
learning
of the material world and the
mystical knowledge
of God.
Soloviev s Twelve Lectures on Theandrism were
published
about the same time in the Orthodox Re
view. These lectures were most
carefully prepared
and delivered before an enthusiastic audience.
They expressed
the
deepest thoughts
of a
philo-
8o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
sopher
and believer and marked his first unconscious
leaning
towards Catholicism. He was
certainly
un
aware that this was the
case,
for he
gave
utterance
with serene
good
faith to
many prejudices,
that
still stood between him and the
light.
Theocracy
and theandrism are words of which
Soloviev was
very
fond,
for
they expressed
two ideas
that seemed to him correlative.
Theocracy,
as
he understood
it,
is the result of God s
supreme
dominion over the world. If we
freely recognize
His
rights
and
authority,
we must
inevitably
desire
Him to control all our actions. This free
theocracy
imposes upon every
individual certain
obligations
towards his fellow-men and towards
society
as a
whole. This is
generally
admitted. But
why
?
Why ought
man to
respect
his fellow-man ?
Why
should
beings
of the same
nature,
all
equally
limited
and
equally
relative,
arrange
their
points
of contact
with one another
according
to a scale of duties ?
If altruism is to have
any right
to crush
my egotism,
there must be in each man a trace of the
Divine,
and some resemblance to the Absolute
Infinite,
the
Master,
must be
imprinted
on
every
human soul.
It is He who alone
is,
the sole Good and also the sole
Being,
who must cause me to feel:
"
All these others
are
Mine;
all that thou dost for the least of
My
creatures,
is done to Me. If we are to love
God,
whom we see
not,
we must love our
neighbour
whom we see."
All these
imperfect
manifestations
of God in
man,
all this
arrangement by
which God Himself
uses men
temporarily
as His
proxies,
and all these
SOLOVIEV
AS PROFESSOR
Si
traces of the Creator
were in the
past merely
the
foreshadowings
of the
great
divine revelation.
A
day
dawned
on which the
Word,
God
Himself,
was made Flesh
in the womb of a
Virgin.
Then
these
figurative
theandrisms ceased,
because the
full theandric
reality,
the Man-God of
history,
had come
into
being.
But
this historical
realization
of the Man-God
had
an
object.
It was not
enough
for
God,
the All
Good,
to have honoured
with the divine union one
single
man,
a
supreme
but isolated
representative
of the human
race. No doubt in
Him,
as in all
His
brethren,
abstract
humanity
was
realized,
and
through
Him this
humanity
was associated with
the Godhead.
But was the
real,
concrete mass of
mankind to remain cut off from and
deprived
of
God ? Did not God in His divine
design
aim at
saving
mankind
in
general,
and at
uniting
all men
with the Godhead?
Yes;
all were to be made
divine;
all are called to be consortes divines natures
;
and
consequently,
if the
figurative
theandrisms
have
ceased,
the imitative and
participating
have
begun;
and here we have universal theandrism.
It excludes all
pantheism,
for
only
the
supreme
Head
preserves
for all
eternity
the
hypostatic
union" the Man-God is a
unique personality."
Jesus
Christ alone
enjoys,
strictly speaking,
the
divine
sonship;
He alone is the Word
eternally
begotten,
consubstantial with the
Father;
He alone
receives
eternally
from the
Father,
the first and sole
principle,
that eternal
gift
and
fecundity
that
causes the
Spirit,
consubstantial
with the Father
6
82 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
and the
Son,
to
proceed
eternally
from Him as
well as from the Father.
Consequently
His the-
andrism
is
unique.
There is also a hierarchical
theandrism,
for the Head
imparts
to the members
of His
body,
all in due
order,
manifestations
and
measures of His life.
Finally
there is universal
theandrism,
inasmuch as God
designs
each human
being
to be united and
incorporated
with
Christ,
so that Christ
may grow
in us to His
perfect
fulness,
and we
may help
Him at the same time to become
all
things
to all men. This is the
only
absolute
destiny
for our indestructible
personalities,
and it
alone
brings
them to the Absolute. To it are
subordinated
all the relative and finite ends of this
world. Economic
and civil societies cannot
adopt
any
more honourable
and
necessary
aim than to
collaborate
in
extending
the
City
of
God,
His
King
dom,
called on earth the universal or Catholic
Church.
This
catholicity
was
only
an abstract
conception
to Soloviev
at that date. He
caught glimpses
of
it as an ideal still
non-existent,
but destined
some
day
to be realized
through
the united efforts of
believers. He felt that there must be a
rapproche
ment between the East and the
West,
and dwelt on
this
point especially
in his last lecture. This idea
of
religious
union,
then
put
forward for the first
time
by
Soloviev,
gradually
came to
occupy
all his
thoughts,
but at the time of which we are
speaking,
he still
regarded
it with naive
simplicity.
"
In the
twofold
historical
development
of
Christianity,"
he
said,
"
the Eastern
Church stands for the divine
SOLO VIEV AS PROFESSOR
83
foundation,
the Western for human
frailty.
Could
these two
principles
be
united,
they
would
give
birth to a
humanity
both
spiritual
and
divine,
the
reality
of the universal Church." So much
optimism ought
to have
allayed
the
suspicions
of
the Orthodox
party,
but it did
nothing
of the kind.
The
Slavophiles
resented
any display
of interest
in the
West,
though
it was to condone its weakness
and its rationalism.
Moreover,
this course of
lectures had
begun
with a statement
which,
on the
lips
of a man less
thoroughly
convinced,
might
have
seemed a
challenge.
With calm
audacity
he had
brushed aside the nonsense of
University positivism
and the narrowness of official
orthodoxy.
I
intend to discuss the truths of
positive religion.
This
subject
is
foreign
to
contemporary specula
tion,
and far removed from the interests of con
temporary
civilization;
but these
contemporary
interests did not exist
yesterday
and will have
passed away
to-morrow. I
propose
to deal with
what is of vital
importance
in
every age.
I shall
refrain from
personal
attacks
upon
those who now
deny
the
very principles
of
religion,
as well as
upon
those who assail the
religion
of the
present day,
for
they
do well to assail
it,
since it is not what it
ought
to be."
Four months
later,
in
March, 1881,
the
antagonism
to Soloviev showed itself
openly,
and this time he
was
finally
debarred from
lecturing.
The
following
incident served as an excuse for his removal from
the
University.
He had been
giving
a course of
lectures in the Institute for the
higher
education
84
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
of women at
Petrograd,
and had taken as his
subject
a criticism of
revolutionary principles.
Alexander II.
was assassinated on March
1/13, 1881,
and this
event shed a lurid
light
on Soloviev s
subject;
but
so far from
modifying
his
statements,
he
actually
alluded to
contemporary
affairs in his lecture of
March
13/25.
In order to accommodate his vast
and
increasing
audience,
the Credit Association in
Petrograd
had offered him the use of a
large
hall,
where before an excited
crowd,
holding
various
opinions,
he condemned
every
act of violence as an
evil and a
sign
of
weakness,
saying
that such acts
were
justified
neither
by
God nor
by
the
spiritual
principle
in
man,
but subordinated
right
and truth
to material force and brute
passion,
thus
enslaving
human
personality
to the
tyranny
of environment.
No nation ever advanced in the direction of true
liberty by revolutionary
methods,
and no ruler
ever diminished the evils in his State
by
means of
capital punishment.
The
only
force
worthy
of
the name is
interior,
and
nothing
but
virtue,
derived
from God for the
purpose
of
uniting
men in the bond
of
charity,
can effect
changes
for the better in social
conditions and secure a
victory
over evil. Soloviev
went on to
condemn,
in
vigorous language,
the
perpetrators
of the crime that had
just
been
committed;
but he did not
stop
at this
point,
and
proceeded
to
point
out a
remedy
for the evil
that was
devastating
his
country. Indignation
against
the criminals
was,
he
said,
purely negative
in
character,
and
something positive
was needed
to
prevent
further
outrages.
The moral and in-
SOLOVIEV
AS PROFESSOR
85
tellectual
perversion
that would lead the
young
into a career of crime must be
checked,
and this
could not be effected
by repressive
measures,
which
would be
again purely negative;
such
perversion
could be
prevented only by converting
the masses
to
morality
and
Christianity.
The lectures in their
original
form concluded with
a few remarks on the
necessity
of
restoring
the
principles
of
Christianity,
and on the
example
that
the Government
ought
to set. The exact
wording
of these remarks is
unknown,
as hitherto the
publi
cation of the text of these lectures has
always
been
forbidden,
and
only
a resume of them is
given
in
the third volume of Soloviev
s works.
It is certain that he was horrified at the number
of executions in
Russia,
and
always
advocated a
revision of the criminal
code,
the
very principles
of which
were,
in his
opinion,
shameful and immoral.
At the close of the lectures in
question,
he uttered
a few words that were
perhaps inopportune,
but
less
inexplicable
in Russia than
they
would have
been
elsewhere,
urging
the new Tsar to act as a true
Christian,
by inflicting upon
the
regicides
a
punish
ment that would render their conversion
possible,
instead of
putting
them to death.
In this same
year,
1881,
Dostoievsky
died at the
age
of
sixty-three, leaving
unfinished a work of an
allegorical
nature,
entitled The Karamazov Brothers.
These brothers were three in
number;
the two elder
represented
the
past
Russia of
yesterday
and the
passing
Russia of
to-day. They
are both horrible
types,
one immoral and the other
mentally
affected.
86
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
The
former, Dmitri,
was the incarnation of the
traditional
Slavophile feeling
and of Russian barbar
ism; Ivan,
the second
brother,
preached
the neces
sity
of
transforming
Russia
according
to Western
ideas,
lost his faith and fancied himself an Occi
dental. After
drawing
these
caricatures,
Dostoiev
sky skilfully
sketched the ideal Russian of the
future,
as his
patriotism suggested.
This Russian of the
morrow was to be the outcome of the
highest
aspirations
of his
country
in the
past,
but
also,
as
a child of
history,
he was to love
progress.
He was
to resist the
folly
of the
Intellectuals,
as
being
the
result of
perverted morality;
he would
respect
national
traditions,
but this
respect
should be
strengthened
and
supplemented by
a still
higher
love,
the love of God and
humanity.
Whoever
reads this book will feel that
Dostoievsky
no
longer
needed to look forward to the birth of this Russian
of the future. He had
already appeared,
and
was then a
young professor,
not
yet thirty years
of
age,
whose
gentleness
and
extraordinary
intellectual
gifts
had even thus
early
attracted the attention
of all. In
Dostoievsky
s romance the name of the
third brother is
Aliocha,
but his readers were well
aware that this name stood for that of Soloviev.
When
Dostoievsky
died,
Soloviev was
only
twenty-eight;
he had counted
upon
the
great
influence that his ideas would
acquire through
his
holding
the chair of
philosophy
at the Universities
of
Petrograd
and Moscow. He had desired the
position
in order to make
converts,
not for the sake
of
money,
since his
private
income sufficed for his
SOLOVIEV
AS
PROFESSOR
7
simple
needs.
Now
at
twenty-eight
he saw
himself
finally
removed
from all contact
with
the students,
whom
he loved
with
apostolic
zeal,
and who
looked
up
to him
as a brother,
not much
older
than them
selves,
but
already
famous.
Thenceforward
Solo-
viev could
never
address
a
public
audience
in
Russia,
and
for a
long
time
he was admitted
only
to
private
societies
and
the
drawing-rooms
of
his
friends.
Towards
the end
of his
life,
as soon
as the restrictions
were removed,
he was
elected
a member
of several
learned
societies,
and
a few
months
before
his
death
a chair
was
offered
him
at the
University
c
Varsovie;
but
it was
too
late.
CHAPTER V
SOLOVIEV AS WRITER
BEING thus
reduced to
silence whilst still full of
zeal,
Soloviev
devoted himself to
writing,
and
again
encountered
violent
opposition.
The most im
portant
passages
in his
disquisitions
were
frequently
suppressed
by
the
censor,
and more than once he
was
subjected
to so
many
restrictions that he was
obliged
to
have his books
printed
in Croatia or
even in
Paris.
He had no desire to have recourse to
such
measures,
and on
November 28
(December
10),
1885,
in
order to
refute the
persistent
charges brought
against him,
he
wrote from
Moscow a letter
inserted
two
days
afterwards in the Novoie
Vremia
(No.
3864).
In
it he
says:
"
I
have
just
written
my
first
article
in
a
foreign
language,
addressed to
readers
beyond
the
Russian
frontier. It has
appeared
in
the
Katolicki
List,
under the title The
Church :
Oriental
or
Catholic ?"
No book or
article
printed abroad,
and
therefore
free
from
censorship,
contained a
single
word of
disloyalty
towards the
Tsar. In
his^first
French
pamphlet,
Some
Re/lections
on the
Reunion
of
the
Churches,
Soloviev
was so far from
displaying
the
least
bitterness
that,
when
stating
what
position
88
SOLOVIEV
AS WRITER 89
the
patriarchate
of the East
ought
to hold in the
Catholic Church after
reunion,
he wrote: "The
superiority,
that in the Eastern Church has
always
belonged
and still
belongs
in Russia to the Orthodox
Emperor,
would remain intact."
During
the
years following
his
disgrace,
his
labours were
incessant,
and the
prodigious
force of
his intellect made itself felt. Tavernier remarks
of him that he was insatiable in his desire to
study
and to understand. He
applied
himself to
very
various
subjects
and his
powers
never seemed to
fail,
though
his
modesty
and
affability
continued
unchanged.
The extent of his
knowledge
did not
prejudice
its
accuracy,
and the wide field of his
studies neither overwhelmed nor concealed his
personality
;
he was at once a scholar and a thinker.
Philosophy always occupied
a
prominent position
in his
works,
for he wished to familiarize the Russians
with it.
Consequently
he
undertook,
or else
super
intended,
the translation into Russian of ancient
and modern works on
philosophy, appending
to
them critical and historical notes
;
but his own works
showed him to be the foremost
philosopher
of
his nation. He translated or annotated Plato s
Dialogues,
Kant s
Prolegomena, Lange
s
History of
Materialism,
and
Jodl
s
History of
Ethics.
The whole of the section on
philosophy
in Brock-
haus-Ephrone
s
Encyclopaedia
in
eighty-six
volumes,
was
entrusted to
Soloviev,
who collected a band
of
collaborators,
and himself wrote a considerable
number of
articles,
some
speculative,
on the words
time, love,
metaphysics, predetermination, causality,
90
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
free
will,
and extension
;
and others
historical,
on
Plato, Plotinus,
Valentinus and the
Valentinians,
Basilides, Manicheans, Kabbala,
Duns
Scotus,
Nicholas de
Cusa, Kant,
Hegel, Swedenborg,
Maine
de
Biran,
Joseph
de
Maistre,
etc.
To various Russian
periodicals, especially
to
Questions of Philosophy
and
Psychology,
he con
tributed numerous articles on
contemporary
writers,
such as
lourkevitch, Grote, Minsk,
Prince Troubet-
skoi,
Lopatine, Chtcheglov,
Tchitcherine,
and de
Roberty,
in
Russia,
and
Wundt, Nietzsche, Fouillee,
Ribot,
Guyau, Spencer,
Hellenbach,
and
Hartmann,
in Western
Europe.
His
generous impartiality
was so well
known,
that
in
1898
the
Philosophic Society
of
Petrograd,
wishing
to celebrate
Auguste
Comte s
centenary,
invited Soloviev to deliver the
oration,
and con
sequently
for one
day
the
University opened
its
doors to
him,
and before a vast audience he recalled
his former
struggles
of
twenty-five years ago against
positivism.
He
upheld
his
opinions regarding
Comte
and his
teaching,
but drew his hearers attention to
two main
points
in
positivism;
Comte saw the
need of
raising humanity
to the level of the
Divine,
and insisted that the
living
were bound to
recognize
the influence of the dead. These two
points
were
borrowed from
Christianity.
Comte failed to dis
tinguish
them
clearly
and failed too in
applying
them to his
conception
of the Great
Being;
but in
spite
of his
faulty knowledge,
I would
gladly
believe,
said
Soloviev,
that he was
employed by
Providence
to detach the minds of his
contemporaries
from
SOLOVIEV AS WRITER 9*
materialism,
and to draw their attention to two
essential truths of
Christianity
viz.,
the survival
of the dead who are destined to rise
again,
and the
vocation of all men to theandrism
i.e.,
participation
in
Divinity.
These ideas recall Soloviev s views in 1880.
His
metaphysical
and moral convictions
grew
more
definite
during
his
religious
conversion,
which we
shall soon have to consider. He never ceased to
state them
emphatically,
and,
although,
in order
to
keep
in touch with his
fellow-countrymen,
he
imposed upon
himself a certain amount of
prudent
self-restraint,
he never lost his
simple loyalty.
These characteristics
may
be traced even in his
minor works and
philosophical
articles. The same
depth
of Christian
thought
and the same restrained
zeal of an
apostolic
soul,
are manifest in
1883,
when
he criticized Hellenbach s individualism and meta
physical scepticism;
in
1891,
when he wrote a dis
sertation on the
philosophy
of
history;
in
1893,
in
an article on
telepathy,
dealing
with the
inquiries
set on foot
by Gurney,
Podmore,
and
Meyer;
and
in
1894,
in a
paper
on mediums. The same
spirit
influenced all his
writings,
whether he was
discussing
the moral value of certain
political
and social
theories or
defending
the action of reason and
liberty
in matters of
religion*
Though
Soloviev was
par
excellence a
philosopher,
he had no
contempt
for art and
poetry,
and achieved
considerable success as a
poet.
Here, too,
he
spoke
out of the fulness of his
heart,
and his verses are
often
compared by
Russians with those of
Sully-
92 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
Prudhomme,
whilst in his criticism of art he re
sembled Brunetiere. Both Soloviev and Brunetiere
were in touch with
positivism,
both assumed an
attitude of
conviction,
but at the same time looked
forward to the Catholic
Church,
and both were
overtaken
by
death before
people
knew whether their
actions were in
conformity
with their faith.
There is less
justification
for
comparing
Soloviev
with
Sully-Prudhomme.
Their
poems
have
nothing
in
common
except depth
of
religious aspirations;
and even after his
highest flights, Sully-Prudhomme
falls back into an
abyss
of
doubt,
and his cries for
help,
which are as a rule
individualist,
end in
despair
or
blasphemy.
Those of
Soloviev,
on the
contrary,
rise
gradually
to the
light
of faith and the
confidence that
proceeds
from love. If from time
to time he utters cries of
anguish,
it is because he
sees his
brethren too indifferent to follow him to
the
height
that he has attained.
Many
of Soloviev s
poems
were
published
under
pseudonyms.
In
1895
he
brought
out a second edition of his collected
poems,
and he intended to collect his
literary
articles
in the same
way.
It is
impossible
to mention them
all here he
published essays
on almost all the
Russian
poets
and authors of the nineteenth
century e.g.,
Fet,
Polonsky,
Tioutchev, Tolstoi,
Pouchkine, Lermontov,
and
Dostoievsky.
We shall
have occasion to refer
again
to three lectures on
the last of these
authors,
which roused a sensation
in Russia because
they
tended to
justify
his uni-
versalist and
"
Roman
"
opinions.
We cannot do
more than mention the titles of Soloviev s chief
SOLOVIE V AS WRITER
93
works on art and literature
viz.,
Beauty
in Nature
(1889);
The General
Significance of
Art,
Lyric
Poetry (1890);
First
Steps
Towards Positive .Esthetic-
ism
(1893);
Russian
Symbolists (1895);
The Pictur
esque (1897).
During
the same
period
he was
engaged upon
large
works on
philosophy,
in which he elaborated
the ideas outlined in his theses for the
degrees
of
Master and Doctor.
The chief of these works is
The
Justification of
Good,
dedicated in
1897
to the
memory
of his father and
grandfather;
a revised
edition was
published
in
1898,
Others were left
unfinished
viz.,
Law and
Morality,
which contains
a
chapter
on
capital punishment,
and First
Principles
of Speculative
Philosophy, published 1897-1899
in
Questions
on
Philosophy
and
Psychology.
These treatises and the theses that
preceded
them
deserve full
analysis,
but
they
are overshadowed
by
Soloviev s works on
dogmatic
and ascetic
theology,
to which he devoted his chief attention.
In the midst of his multifarious
occupations,
he
never ceased to learn. At the
age
of
thirty,
when
his name was
already
on all
lips,
and his
writings
were
breaking
down ancient
categories,
and
compel
ling
men to think for
themselves,
he determined
to
study
Hebrew,
in order that he
might
read the
Old Testament in the
original,
and make a direct
translation of it for the benefit of the Russian
Church. With this
purpose
in view he retired for
several months to a
monastery
in Moscow.
However,
contact with the
past
and the
study
of the
prophets
did not turn his attention from the
present
and
94
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
future. He was
keenly
interested in all
religious
questions,
in the
Jews,
Mahometans, Poles,
and
Staroviertsi or Old
Believers;
in official
Orthodoxy
and its
organization, dependence, hierarchy,
and
monks. He
eagerly investigated
all these
subjects,
which cause
many
difficulties in modern Russia.
Soloviev s most characteristic
writings
on the
Russian Church and sects are: The
Spiritual
Power
in Russia
(1881);
Old Believers in the Russian Nation
and
Society (1883)
;
How are we to Awaken the Powers
of
the Church?
(1885).
He
protested,
as the Catholic
bishops
in Poland
have done
recently, against
the excessive
severity
of Russian
legislation regarding
the
Jews.
On this
topic,
a serious bone of contention
in
Russia,
he
wrote three
important
works:
Judaism
and Chris
tianity (1884);
Israel Under the New Law
(1885);
and Talmud and Anti-
Jewish
Polemics
(1886).
In the Slav
library
in Brussels there is a
copy
of the
first of these
works,
in which Soloviev himself has
restored the
passages suppressed by
the censor.
On the Polish
question
he wrote: The Entente with
Rome and the Moscow
Newspapers
(1883); Arguments
Against
the Establishment
of
a National Church in
Poland
(1897);
as well as various
chapters
in his
larger
works. In order to find solutions for the
various
problems,
he had recourse to historical
records and ventured to
apply
the most exalted
principles;
in
discussing
the
application
of his
theories,
he descended to the
sphere
of
politics,
and in all his
explanations
and discussions he
pre
served a calm and
comprehensive loyalty,
which
SOLOVIEV AS WRITER
95
was destined ere
long
to raise him to a broader
outlook than that of the Russian
Empire
or of all
the Slav States
collectively.
The
Slavophile party,
allied with the anti-
Christian Liberals in their
antagonism
to
Soloviev;
accused him of want of
patriotism,
and thus his
very loyalty
at first increased the number of his
foes,
although
it
finally
disarmed them and induced
them to
put
aside their
calumnies,
when their
victim s heart had
long
ached under the
charge
of want of
patriotism.
His
reply
was that he was
inspired by
the
purest
and most devoted
patriotism.
"
You tell
me,"
he
said,
"
that love of
my country
does not take in me the form of
idolatry;
that is
true. I love
Russia,
but I
perceive
the mistakes
that she has
made,
and condemn her
past
and
present
injustice.
I
long
to see her still
greater
and more
glorious,
but that does not mean more violent or
more
domineering.
I
hope
that she will be in future
better
governed
and more
moral,
and
eventually
more
truly
Christian,
worthy
to be called
Holy
Russia. I trust that she will care more for
doing
God s will than for
conquering
other
nations;
that she
may
deserve admiration and
envy
rather
than
fear;
that she
may
defend her
Tsar,
less for
his own sake than for God
s;
that she
may acquire
influence,
less
by
force of arms than
by
her faith and
charity;
in
short,
I
hope
that Russia will be
great,
because she acts as the
apostle
of the
world, and,
by
preaching
the
universality
of
Jesus
Christ,
she
increases His
mystical body
and
glorifies
His one
Holy
Church the Catholic Church which
by
the
96
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
accession of Russia
will become
more
perfectly
and
visibly
Catholic."
Soloviev
s
patriotism
did
not
prevent
him from
surveying,
unhindered
by
time,
space,
and national boundaries,
the
religious
life of
mankind,
which
is, alas,
only
too often
in
direct
opposition
to God s
designs.
If we
compare
His divine
plan
of
religion
with
the
history
of
religions,
we shall see a drama
with a twofold action,
older than the world and more
universal
than
the
world. It is indeed
a
spectacle
full of interest
both for a
contemplative
philosopher
and for a
man of action.
"
We behold
the interests
of
justice,
love,
and
goodness;
the interests
of individuals
and
societies,
of human
souls
and of
Jesus
Christ;
in
short,
the interests
of creation
as a whole con
curring
with those of God."
But
everywhere
these interests,
human
and
divine,
encounter
opposition.
Universal
thean-
drism,
the
uplifting
of men to
God,
is the
aim,
but
the
spirit
that would
fain attain
to it is
everywhere
thwarted,
being
weighed
down
by
rebellious
matter.
According
as we live
in the West
or the
East,
we
speak
of
positivism
or Confucianism,
of
theosophy
or Buddhism,
of
revolutionary
irreligion
or
super
stitious traditions,
of the credulous
servility
result
ing
from free
thought
or false ecstasies
and frauds.
All these are
but
episodes
in the
great
struggle,
and of
greater
interest
than
any
other
is the schism
between
the Eastern
and Western
Churches.
Christendom,
originally
one and undivided,
has
for
eight
centuries
been
rent asunder
into two
bodies;
the
kingdom
of God
torn
into two hostile
SOLO VIEV AS WRITER
97
camps,
is indeed calculated to arouse
feelings
of
sorrowful
amazement.
At the
age
of
twenty-five,
Soloviev
thought
that the vital force of both
Churches
proceeded
from
Christ,
but the waters of
eternal life flowed in two
antagonistic
currents,
and the members of Christ s visible
body
were
engaged
in bitter warfare. Instead of
working
together
to fertilize the
ground
that it
might
produce
new
Christians,
they fought
one with the
other,
using
the
Bible,
the
hierarchy
and tradition
in their conflict.
Prayer,
the
liturgy,
the sacra
ments,
and even the
Mass,
seemed not to be means
of
offering praise
and
worship
to God so much as
occasions of
hostility. Bishops
were
ranged against
bishops,
councils
against
councils,
saints
against
saints,
and even Church
against
Church.
Surely
it was an
irony,
if not a
blasphemy,
in
spite
of all
this disorder to invoke Him who
prayed
that all
His followers
might
be one ! How could a Christian
priest,
who had
just
anathematized some sincere
worshippers
of
Christ,
read out the words:
"
By
this shall all men know that
you
are
My disciples,
if
you
love one another
"
? How could love of a
national
religion
be reconciled with the doctrines
of
Christ,
and
jealous
race
feeling
with those of
St. Paul ? Was
Slavophile orthodoxy compatible
with our Divine Master s command to teach all
nations,
or with the
Apostle
s statement that now
there were neither
Jews
nor
Gentiles,
neither Greeks
nor barbarians ?
Only
a
very
full and
well-grounded theology
could solve these formidable
antinomies,
and
7
98
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
therefore
Soloviev,
without
forsaking philosophy,
turned his attention to
theology.
Thenceforth
his
activity
in both
departments
was simultaneous
and
converging.
For
purposes
of
criticism,
we
are
obliged
to
distinguish
them,
but the reader must
be careful not to think of Soloviev as at one moment
a
philosopher,
and at another a
theologian. During
the last
twenty years
of his life the
philosopher,
formerly
attracted to natural
science,
devoted
himself
chiefly
to
theology,
whilst,
on the other
hand,
the
theologian
retained the clear and
logical
methods
that he had
acquired
in the course of his
previous
studies.
CHAPTER VI
SOLOVIEV AS
LOGICIAN
IN his first
thesis,
Soloviev showed that he was a
philosopher.
Of
course there are defects in the
volume that he finished at the
age
of
twenty.
With
the
impetuosity
of
youth
he
expresses
extremely
dogmatic
opinions
and rather
forced
systemati-
zations.
The
pages
devoted to the
history
of
Western
philosophy
before
Descartes contain
more than
one
inaccuracy,
but his
overhasty
conclusions
were
re-examined and
corrected in
subsequent
works.
There was
some
exaggeration
in
representing
the
Unconscious of
Hartmann as the fatal
goal
towards
which the two
irreligious
tendencies of
Western
thought,
exclusive idealism
and
exclusive
empiricism,
converged. Still,
on
the
whole,
the
thesis
itself,
and the
replies
to the
attacks that it
occasioned, revealed
intensely personal
and
mature
thought,
in
direct
contact rare at that
period
with
Western
philosophy,
and a
very
wide
range
of
intelligent
reading.
The
forms
employed by
Soloviev
were
often
original,
as for
instance was the case with
the two
syllogisms
in
which he
summed
up
the
historical
99
ioo VLADIMIR SOLOV1EV
and
logical
evolution of
empiricism
and idealism in
modern times. The
major premiss
of the former
would have been borrowed from
dogmatism
:
We think
being;
the minor from Kant: We
never think
except only concepts.
From these
premisses Hegel
deduced:
Being
is therefore a
concept.
Bacon furnished the
major premiss
of the second
syllogism:
The true essence of
things,
that which
really
is,
manifests itself to our real
experience.
Locke
supplied
the minor: To our real
experience
only
isolated states of consciousness manifest
themselves. And Mill deduced: Isolated states of
consciousness are the true essence of
things.
This line of
reasoning
would
justify every variety
of
pragmatism,
from the
philosophy
of the ides-
forces to the
vaguest
voluntarisms of social or
merely
moral
conceptions.
In all Soloviev s works we see this
tendency
to
trace the
growth
of the
systems
in which human
thought
found
expression.
He liked to discover
their remote
origin,
in order to forecast their
development
and results. In this characteristic
he showed his
affinity
with the Western
philosophers
of the nineteenth
century,
who were concerned
with
the evolution of
species.
He realized that
Hegel
had
greatly
influenced the minds and
systems
of
his
time,
and his
opponents
committed the
strange
mistake of
concluding
from Soloviev s words on
the
subject,
that he had himself been a follower of
Hegel.
As
early
as
1874
this anti-materialist
champion
had written:
"
Hegel ought
to be
regarded
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN 101
as the father of the most absolute materialism.
His
metaphysics
are to a
great
extent answerable for
every
kind of
positivism
and for the
general hostility
to
every
form of
metaphysics. Hegel
influenced
Feuerbach,
whose translated works have done
much to
spread
atheism in
Russia,
and who
gave
an
extraordinary
turn to his most disastrous
formulae.
Hegel
maintained that man was the
supreme
substance, therefore,
says
Feuerbach,
it
is clear that the
divinity
for
man,
is not
God,
but
man,
and
consequently
homo est
quod
est
(edit)
man is what he eats."
But
Hegel
s influence is
responsible
for still more
outrageous
results, as,
for
instance,
in the case of
Max
Stirner,
who extolled
egotism,
absolute in
dividualism,
and fratricidal
struggles, embodying
all
his
system
in one formula:
"
I am
everything
to
myself,
and I do
everything
for
myself
alone." His
"
divinity
"
waged
war
against
all the
gods
i.e.,
men and
yielded only
to the
physical
force that
was able to crush it.
Besides,
Feuerbach and
Stirner,
we
may regard
as
Hegel
s
legitimate
descendants
Auguste
Comte,
John
Stuart
Mill,
Spencer,
Schopenhauer
and Hartmann.
Such were Soloviev s
opinions
in
1874,
and he
often
renewed and
emphasized them,
so that
Ossip-Lourie
is
justified
in
saying:
"
It is a
mistake
to think of Soloviev as a follower of
Hegel;
he is
the
very opposite
and criticizes
Hegel
most
severely."
This remark is
perfectly
true,
and it is
difficult to
account for the fact that Soloviev was for a
long
time
accused of
Hegelianism
by
his own
fellow-country-
102 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
men. What can have
given
rise to this idea ?
Was it due to his
quoting Hegel,
and
ascribing
to
him
great
talents ? Neither reason seems
adequate.
Does
any
critic take as his master a writer whose
pernicious
influence he condemns ? Is it con
ceivable that a man of mean intellect could have
done as much as
Hegel
to increase the
prevailing
confusion of
thought
?
My
own belief is that
Soloviev would never have been
suspected
of
Hegelianism,
if he had been
nothing
more than a
philosopher.
One
day,
however,
he declared that
faith in an
unchanging dogma
did not condemn
the
human intellect to
stagnation,
nor
suppress
the
desire, need,
and means of
seeing
truth more
clearly
;
far from
being
a hindrance to intellectual
progress,
faith
encouraged
and even
required
it.
Soloviev then understood and
quoted
St.
Augustine
s
saying:
"Value the
understanding
of
your
faith
very highly.
He who
by
the
right
use
of reason
begins
to understand his
faith,
is
certainly
superior
to him who as
yet merely
desires to under
stand what he believes. But if he have no such
desire,
and thinks that the
things,
which
ought
to
be
understood,
are
simply
to be
believed,
he fails
to
perceive
the
utility
of faith
"
(S. Aug.
Epist.,
120,
c.
II.-IIL,
n. 8 et
13).
Some members of the Orthodox
party
were
scandalized
at this return to
tradition,
and their
indignation
increased when Soloviev
proceeded
to
state
that,
in order to direct this
development
in
a
way compatible
with the
immutability
of the
faith,
the infallible Church has
surely
received
from
SOLOVIEV
AS LOGICIAN 103
Christ an
appropriate
organ,
and this
infallible
expounder
of the faith is the successor
of St. Peter.
This statement
aroused the
fury
of those
who
upheld
the absolute
fixity
of Orthodox belief,
and
they
accused Soloviev
of
being
a follower
of
Hegel,
because he admitted the
possibility
of
growth
in
Christianity,
and
perceived
in the Catholic
Church
a means of
developing
Christian
truth that
the
Holy
Synod
did not
possess.
Consequently
in the
eyes
of the Orthodox
party
Catholicism
appeared
to be
contaminated
with
Hegelianism.
The
grounds
of
this accusation
were therefore
theological
rather
than
philosophical,
and
Ossip-Lourie
was
uncon
sciously
influenced
by
religious prejudice
when he
wrote that
Soloviev,
though
a theist in his
conception
of the First
Principle,
was a
pantheist
in his ideas
regarding
the cosmic
process.
These
charges against
Soloviev
were
groundless,
for he believed in Divine Providence,
he knew
that
God calls men to sanctification,
and that
prayer
places
them in real communication
with God.
This
is what the Russians
call
"
mysticism."
Soloviev
s
mysticism
was
essentially
Christian,
as all his
writings
show,
even those in which
he deals
with
philosophy
properly
so called.
In the
Philosophical
Principles of
Integral
Science
an ideal
system
of
thought, organization,
and action,
is offered to
humanity,
but because
it was
ideal,
Soloviev did not
expect
its realization,
which
would
be more
impossible
than that of the marvels
of
Utopia.
Still the ideal ceases
to be a chimera
as
soon as it influences our will for
good,
and thus
io
4
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
promotes
real
progress.
This
treatise,
in which
ideas are
presented
in
disconcerting
abundance,
resembles a Discourse on
Method,
in which the same
investigation
is carried
on,
and the same con
clusions
drawn,
in
every department
of human
activity,
the nature and
theory
of
knowledge,
its
logical
and
metaphysical
value,
its
psychological
conditions and
consequences,
and its influence
upon
individual action and
every
kind of social cohesion.
Whether it be
empirical
or
scientific,
knowledge
limited to the facts and
phenomena
of the outward
world will be
utilitarian,
and will
promote
the
material interests of
humanity
and the economic
development
of
society.
If it rises to
general
ideas,
principles,
and their
logical
connection,
knowledge
becomes
philosophy,
which enables
human reason to rise
higher
than it did when
aided
only by
the utilitarian
knowledge
of
facts,
but if
philosophy
is content to
stop
there and refuses
all further
light,
it wastes itself on the
merely
formal
side of ideas and truths and on
purely subjective
considerations,
and men will
logically deny
the
objective
value of these ideas as
long
as
they
refuse
to ask
theology
whether
any
absolute
being
exists,
and what it is.
There are in man tendencies
corresponding
to
these three
degrees
of
knowledge
In the social
order our
appetites
determine the social relations
with a view to
increasing
labour. A certain
"
ideal
"
desire for order establishes a
judicial
and
legal
order
among
the
workers,
and subordinates the
society
thus
organized
to a form of
government.
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
105
Finally
there is a
higher craving,
that
belongs
to
the
theological
order,
for an existence that is
absolute and
eternal,
and this desire tends to unite
men in a
religious society.
Sensible
activity displays
also three
degrees;
it
may
be contented with material
enjoyment
and
aim at
nothing beyond
technical
progress
in trade
to add to its comfort. It
may encourage
the
sesthetic
expression
of the idea
by
means of the
fine arts
;
or it
may
lend itself to
mystical
communi
cation with the other world.
Paganism
did not
distinguish
between these
three
degrees,
and the result was the most
tyrannical,
exclusive,
and absurd absolutism that the world has
ever seen. All
knowledge
was subordinated to a
theosophy
without
foundation,
all
society
was
subject
to a
theocracy
in which the sole
deity might
be the
caprice
of a man like
Caligula,
and all action
was dominated
by
a
theurgy
that led
only
to
mystifi
cation.
Christianity distinguishes clearly
what
paganism
confounded;
the
profane
cannot be identi
fied with the
sacred,
nor the
city
of men with the
City
of God. The
reign
of
liberty
would
begin
at
once,
if the
pagan principle
did not seek to
avenge
itself
by bringing
into
antagonism things
that
ought
to be
merely distinguished.
In the case of know
ledge,
for
instance,
Comte
vainly
describes the
ages
of
theology, philosophy,
and science as in
conflict one with another. Modern
sociologists
emphasize
the
spirit
of
rivalry
which
impels
the three
categories
of social
organisms
into a warfare not
for
supremacy,
but for
existence;
economic
power
is
rob
VLADIMIR SOLO VIE V
coveted and will soon be
conquered by
socialism;
the
power
of
government
is
being
transformed into
a
Byzantine
Caesarism,
irresponsible
and autocratic
;
and in
religion
there is a
tendency
to a kind of
papism,
that Soloviev detested.
The misfortune is that each of these
powers
aspires
to
solitary
dominion,
and to crush the other
two
by
its own force. In
reality
exclusivism is no
more
injurious
to one than to the
other;
it is
contrary
to
nature,
and an alliance
ought
to be formed
between
them,
for thus alone can a
development,
suited to the
dignity
of
man,
be secured both for
the individual and for
society. Every
man and
every group
of men
ought
to
agree willingly
to this
alliance,
if
only they
considered the relative value
of the
advantages
that it would
safeguard;
then
they
would ensure their own
liberty through
divine
truth : veritas liberabit eos. To
designate
this alliance
in the three
departments
of human
activity,
Soloviev
employed
the three words used
by
Plotinus,
which
are well
adapted
to
express
the
supremacy
of
God,
and are
guarded against any pantheistic interpre
tation
by
the
explicit
mention of the
human,
though
Christian,
principle
of
liberty.
Free
theurgy
de
notes the deliberate collaboration of an
artisan,
an
artist and a
mystic, inspired by
the desire to raise
themselves and their brethren to God. Free
theocracy represents
the effort of human societies
as a
hierarchy;
the social
organism
works
only
to
facilitate the
distinctly
human
activity
of the
mind,
and minds
mutually
aid one another in
realizing
the individual and collective divinization that God
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
107
Himself
proposes
as the end of
man,
both in His
Word and in His Church.
Finally,
the
agreement
of
science,
philosophy,
and
theology
constitutes an intellectual
wealth,
a ful
ness of
knowledge,
that
may
well be termed a
divine
wisdom,
or in Plotinus
language/r^
theosophy.
This
theosophy
has
nothing
in common with that
introduced from
India,
which Soloviev
opposed
strenuously.
It is an
organic synthesis,
in which
science,
philosophy,
and
theology
are
distinct,
each
being
an
aspect
of
truth,
not its
plenitude.
The same
spirit
should co-ordinate the three
points
of
view,
in order to
preserve
for each its
integral
value. It
starts from different data and follows in each case
an
appropriate
method,
but whilst
distinguishing
them,
it does not
represent
them as in conflict.
The
synthesis
of an
integral
science is
possible
only
on this condition.
After this
introduction,
Soloviev indicates a
twofold manner of
regarding philosophy
strictly
so called.
Some,
or rather
most,
of his
contempo
raries wished
philosophy
to stand alone and to be
concerned
solely
with theoretic
speculation.
In
this
way
it becomes
simply
a
system,
having
no
relation to individual or social
life,
and it leads
inevitably
to
scepticism by way
of materialism
or
idealism,
though
various forms
may
be
produced
by
individuals or in the course of
history.
In an
existence where
happiness
is neither
complete
nor
lasting,
the
question
"
What is the aim of life?"
is of
supreme importance.
We all desire to ascertain
the
object
of our own existence in
particular
and
io& VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
that of
humanity
in
general.
Soloviev discusses
and criticizes these various
systems
of
independent
philosophy
in a few
pages
that are a
masterpiece
of concise and
logical argument.
The other kind of
philosophy may
be called
integral
or
theosophical,
for it concludes
nothing
a
priori,
but
goes
back to the
superhuman
and
super-
cosmic
essence,
to the Essential Truth whose exist
ence is
autonomous, absolute,
and
supremely
inde
pendent
of our
thought
as well as of the
reality
of the outer world. Cartesianism and the deism of
Wolf seem to reduce this essence into a kind of
abstract
principle,
but
integral philosophy
sees in
it
reality,
full of life and
thought,
"
the real source
which
imparts
to the world the shadow of its own
reality,
and to our
thought
that which it
copies
from the
Archetype."
But such a
philosophy
does
not
stop
short at
fragmentary
or exclusive know
ledge. According
to
it,
truth in all its fulness
can be
appropriated only by
an action of the will
inspired by
love of the
Good,
and
by
an
uplifting
of the
feelings
towards the Beautiful. This
integral
philosophy, being
free from all
exclusivism,
is
naturally
allied with true
science,
which is
empirical
without
being
narrow;
it
employs
a rational
analysis
of ideas in order thus to
distinguish
and define
realities,
and it rises to
superhuman
realities. This
intellectual reflection is what Soloviev calls
mysticism,
in contradistinction to what he terms
mystique,
which is a direct or rather sensible communication
with these realities.
In the third
part
of the same work he discusses
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
109
the lines on which
logic ought
to be
organized
with
regard
to this
integral philosophy.
He
distinguishes
the material and the formal
aspects
of
knowledge,
and
analyzes
the
nature, value,
and
origin
of ideas
and intellectual
processes,
and
finally
he states
how and to what extent Absolute
Being
can be
known. Soloviev s critics would have avoided
many
errors in their estimate of
him,
had
they
read
the
pages
in which he deals with this last
subject.
The
Absolute,
he
says,
does not as absolute fall
under our
knowledge,
for our senses fail to
grasp
it,
nor does our intellect
perceive
it
directly.
The
abstractions that we devise do not
really represent
this
Being
in whom essence and existence are even
logically unseparable.
Hence the Absolute cannot
be known
by
relative
beings
unless He reveals
Himself to them. We know
Him, therefore,
by
His own
action,
which causes all relative
beings
with all their relative essences and existences to
tend towards Him. We catch a
glimpse
of this
action in the
empirical phenomena
of the outer
world,
and it stands at the
beginning,
centre,
and
end of all our
thought.
Thus true wisdom
recognizes everywhere
the
presence
and action of
God,
the
presence
ever
active,
the action ever
present.
True wisdom knows that
God is
perfect unity
and at the same time the
perfect
All
;
that He is One and All not in the
pantheistic
sense,
for
everything
is not
God;
the sum total of
finite
beings
does not make them one and God.
But He is the
perfect
whole
;
He
possesses
such
pleni
tude of
being
that the addition of the finite cannot
no
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
make it more
complete;
for He in His
simplicity
surpasses
and contains all finite
beings;
He is in a
fuller sense than
they
are. He is the
perfect
whole,
because the manifold terms of His
action,
compared
with the
reality
of His
Being,
bear
only
a faint re
semblance to
it,
and
merely
seem to exist
;
"
they
are
as if
they
were not." This
conception
is neither
agnostic
nor
pantheistic,
but
truly
Christian,
based
upon
both the Old and the New
Testament,
and
taught by
Christ and His
apostles,
the Fathers of
the
Church,
the Doctors of the Middle
Ages,
Councils,
theologians,
and
philosophers,
in
short,
by
all
whom Soloviev called
"
theosophic."
It should be
remembered that the
Russian,
who handled so
skilfully
these delicate and subtle
questions,
was
only twenty-four.
Soloviev s
Philosophical Principles of Integral
Science is one of his most
important
works. We
have
analyzed
it at some
length,
because his sub
sequent writings
and even his
language
are unin
telligible
to those who are unfamiliar with it.
It is
easy
now to understand the
significance
of the thesis written for his
degree
as Doctor of
Philosophy
in
1880,
Critique of
Exclusive
Principles,
and
easy,
too,
to see
why
the word exclusive has
been substituted for
abstract,
which would be the
literal translation of the
original.
When Soloviev
speaks
of abstract or
separate principles,
he is refer
ring
to that lower form of
philosophy
which is con
cerned
solely
with
thought,
and not with life in its
serious
aspect.
He
says:
I term abstract or
exclusive
principles
certain
fragmentary
ideas de-
SOLOVIEV AS
LOGICIAN
in
tached from truth as a
whole,
and
discussed to the
exclusion of all other
considerations.
Under
these
conditions
they
cease to
represent
the
truth,
are
mutually
contradictory,
and
keep
the
world in its
present
state of
intellectual
dislocation.
These
exclusive
principles
are
falsified
by
their
very
ex-
clusivism;
in order to
criticize
them,
we have
firstly
to
determine their
proper
value,
and
show,
secondly,
that
they
cannot be substituted for
integral
reality
without
involving
internal
contradiction. Our
criticism will be an
introduction to the
study
of
those
positive
principles
which
influence life and
conscience,
but are in
themselves eternal
essence in
the sole
perfect
Absolute."
Two forms of
exclusive
thought
are
discussed
at
length
viz
,
that which
confines itself to
cata
loguing
facts in the name of
positive
empirical
science,
and that which
constructs a
purely
formal
philosophy
in the name of reason
emptied
of all
real
content and
declared
actually
non-existent.
Through Auguste
Comte and
Hegel
this
twofold
conception
has
attracted
many
minds,
but it has
the fatal
defect of
making
void the
world and
thought.
Thus
exclusive
science and
philosophy
lead to
doubt and
scepticism,
that rob them
even
tually
of all
objective
value and
condemn
them
altogether.
With them
perish
also all
systems
of
ethics that men have tried to base on
science or
philosophy, apart
from
religion.
Soloviev
proved
this
fact with
accuracy
and
emphasis.
Fifteen
years
earlier than
Brunetiere
he
proclaimed
the
bankruptcy
of all
who
attempted
U2 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
to establish a new ethical
system, empirical
or
rational,
inspired by personal
dignity
or
by
devotion
to social
progress,
but still autonomous.
In his
panegyric
of
Soloviev,
pronounced
at the
Academy
of Science at
Petrograd
on
January
21,
1901,
Koni
drew
particular
attention to this
priority
on the
part
of the Russian
philosopher,
and
pointed
out
at the same time that these views do not affect the
legitimate
development
of science and
philosophy
in their
proper spheres.
There is no
question
of
denying
scientific results,
obtained
by
the research
and labour
of
centuries,
nor of
destroying philo
sophy
in order to
construct,
under the name of
faith,
a blind
and
ungrounded
theology. Any theology
that is out of touch with real
life,
unable
to
justify
its existence
or to
develop logically, powerless
to
subject
intellect
to
truth,
and still more
powerless
to
subject
to it all human life a
theology
that
would
reject
all science and
philosophy
would
display
the worst features
of exclusivism.
In the intellectual
and moral
order,
in
thought
as well as in
action,
barriers
must be
removed,
so
that the different
spheres
may
be
distinguished,
but
not cut off from
one another.
Soloviev
suggests
that the same
remark
would
apply
to the creative
genius
in
art,
but he
postpones
the
development
of this idea,
and
never had time to revert to it.
He dwells
rather
on the social
application
of his
principles,
and
says
that a certain
essential
equality
exists
among
all human
beings,
because each
individual
ought
to
represent
the absolute.
Sub
specie
aternitatis
all men
may
be accounted
equal,
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
113
since all are finite in
comparison
with the
infinite.
Each,
however,
represents
the divine
unity
in
a
different
way,
and this
inequality justifies
their
plurality,
as also their
relations of mutual love and
support.
These relations
necessitate
spontaneous
grouping
and the formation of
particular societies,
but at the same time there must be one
society
that aims at
bringing
men into direct contact with
God;
and this is the Universal
Church,
to
which,
in
accordance with God s
design,
all mankind should
belong.
Every
human
society
must have a
government,
and in this world the
hierarchy
cannot be established
on a basis of
personal worth;
but in an ideal state
authority
would be
distributed
according
to men s
ability
to
promote
the
economic,
political,
or
religious
welfare of
society.
Even societies
ought
to
recog
nize a kind of
hierarchy among
themselves.
"
A
free Church in a free State
"
is a watchword that we
often
hear,
but no believer can
accept
it,
for in his
opinion
it
destroys
the essential
hierarchy designed
by
God,
and
assigns
too low a
position
to the Church.
An
unbeliever, however,
thinks that it ascribes to
her too
lofty
a
position,
since she has no
right
to
legal
recognition.
History
confirms the
logic
of
this,
and the formula cannot be a
principle,
at best
it is a
practical
compromise.
Church and
State,
the
spiritual
and the secular
powers, being
both
based on the will of God and human
nature,
cannot
be
mutually
destructive,
nor can
they
exist in com
plete separation.
Their true relation is one of
8
n
4
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
free
subordination,
originating
in true love of God
and
man,
and
existing
in what Soloviev calls a free
theocracy.
He foresaw that
people
would
accuse
him of
being
a
Utopian,
and so he forestalled
their
objections
to his
theory,
and
deliberately began by
discussing
the ideal constitution
of
society.
In
Chapter
XII. he
says
that human
society
is at once
a fact and an ideal. Positivists
are contented
with
statical
sociology,
and do not
go beyond
facts;
but as soon as a
sociologist begins
to consider
social
dynamics,
he is in search of an ideal element
contained
in
facts,
and
perhaps,
in
spite
of
himself,
he
develops
an ideal
sociology,
and holds
opinions
as to what
ought
to be the state of affairs
in
society.
The
positivist
conception
is condemned
for
yet
another
reason;
if
society
is a
fact,
an
organic
reality,
as
they
assume,
this
reality
is made
up
of
elements
capable
of
perception
and
thought.
The
fact,
therefore,
is
permeated
by
the
idea,
which
directs
every
activity
on the
part
of the elements,
and which,
because
it directs
without
being yet
realized,
is
Ideal,
no matter what its nature
may
be.
This notion of the Ideal
may
be ridiculed
as
Utopian,
but nevertheless
the Ideal
will
always
be the
precursor
of real
activity,
and it would be
utterly
unreasonable
to
attempt
to
suppress
every
directing
idea. Hence,
adds Soloviev,
it is
important
that a
philosopher,
who studies
society,
should
first
determine
its ideal constitution,
and make
up
his
mind what it
ought
to be.
This is
why
he omitted
for the time
being
all that did
not bear
upon
principles;
means of
application
would
depend
upon
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
115
politics.
In
practice
it would be
necessary
to
pay
attention to all
facts, but,
in order to select and
arrange
suitable
measures,
a man of action must
have a clear
conception
of the idea.
Soloviev was from that time forward
planning
a
large
work on Christian
Politics,
but he never
finished it. In
1883
he
published
seven
chapters
forming
the
part
in which doctrinal and
ecclesiastical
matters were discussed.
They
bore the title: The
Great Debate and Christian
Politics. We shall
revert to this work
later;
other
fragments
of it
appeared
from time to
time,
and those in
which the
duties of Russia were laid down
attracted
much
attention,
and also roused much
indignation
in
some
quarters.
The
positivists
laughed
at the
suggestion
of a moral idea in
politics;
the
Neo-Slavophiles might
have
accepted
the
principle
in
order to
apply
it to
other
States,
but were
unwilling
that
Christianity
should
impose
on
Russian
politics
any obligation
to be moderate. Where
foreign politics
were con
cerned,
they
wished national
interests to take
precedence;
and it is
easy
to
understand their
religious
attitude towards
everything
that
they
did
not consider orthodox. This
"
International
canni
balism,"
as Soloviev called
it,
was
repugnant
to
him,
for he felt that what was
genuinely
to
the
interest of his
country
could not be
discovered either
in evil or in
resistance to God s will. It was in
accordance with God s
design
that
countries,
races,
and traditions should
exist,
but
nevertheless
He
created
only
one
humanity,
and
subjected
it all
to
one moral code.
n6
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
The
essays,
that we have been
discussing
in this
chapter,
all
appeared
before
1883.
For about
fifteen
years
Soloviev
wrote no
important
work on
pure
philosophy;
all his attention seemed to be
devoted
to
theology,
asceticism,
and the
history
of
religion,
and
only
a few occasional articles
proved
that
he had not forsaken
philosophy
altogether.
In
1897
he consented
to revise his thesis for the
degree
of
doctor, insisting only upon
a clear state
ment
regarding
the evolution
of his
thought.
In an
appendix
headed
"
Corrigenda
"
he
says:
"
Twenty
years
ago
I wrote this
Critique of
Exclusive
Principles
at a time when
I was too
strongly
influenced on
points
of
pure philosophy
by
Kant
and
Schopen
hauer."
Consequently
he
carefully
revised the
chapters
dealing
with Kant
s
principle
of
morality.
During
the same
year
some articles
by
Soloviev
appeared
in
Questions
of
Philosophy
and
Psychology,
the chief
philosophical
review
published
in Russia.
Amongst
them were three
chapters
intended to be
the
beginning
of a
large
work
on
knowledge.
The
outline
of it indicates
what
this
Justification
of
Truth
was
intended
to be. There was to be one dominant
idea viz.,
to substitute
for the classical TvuOt
aav-rov
some
more
comprehensive
motto
which
would
assert
the
tendency
of mankind
to
progress,
and
this Soloviev
discovered
in St.
Augustine
s
words:
Deus
semper
idem,
noverim me,
noverim
te.
His
ideal was to
begin
with
personal
introspection
of the
Ego,
and then to rise to Divine
truth
in its
absolute
Being,
and
subsequently
to revert
to the
beings
in
process
of
development
that
God
has
SOLOVIEV AS LOGICIAN
117
produced
in His own
image.
Thus we should raise
our
thoughts
from man to
God,
only
to find God
again
in all His
works,
and so we should learn to
know the Truth :
yv&Oi rrjv aKrjdeiav.
This work on
theoretical
philosophy
was never
finished,
and we must
deeply regret
the
fact,
especially
if we
judge
of its value
by referring
to
The
Justification of
Good,
Moral
Philosophy,
another
work written about the same time and on similar
lines.
CHAPTER
VII
SOLOVIEV
AS MORALIST
"
THE
JUSTIFICATION
OF GOOD
"
SOLOVIEV
wrote a
great
deal on
morals,
and almost
all his works deal
with some
aspect
of this
subject.
Whether
he was
writing
as
historian,
theorist,
critic,
or
philosopher,
he
continually
referred
to
morals
as the
manifestation
of
practical
reason.
Incidentally
he answered
many
ethical
questions,
such as the
origin
of
morality,
the nature
of
duty,
the existence
and
limitations
of
liberty,
and
the individual
and social
bearing
of our
human
obligations.
We have
already
alluded
to some
of these articles,
but their
synthesis
is
worthy
of more detailed
examination,
in which
we can
proceed
on the lines
laid down
by
Soloviev
in his
Justification
of
Good,
an
important
work
containing
a
summary
of his
views
as a moralist.
Nine
months
only
after
its
first
appearance
he had to
prepare
a second edition,
in the
preface
to which
he
says:
"During
these
nine
months
I read the whole
book
through
five
times,
each time
making
corrections,
so that it
might
express
my
thought
with
greater
precision;
but
in
spite
of
my
efforts,
it is still
imperfect.
I
trust
that
it will
not
bring
down
upon
me the
118
SOLOVIEV
AS MORALIST 119
reproach:
Cursed be he that doth the work of the
Lord
deceitfully.
These
words,
which are
intentionally
dated
December
8,
1898,
indicate
clearly
in what
spirit
Soloviev
undertook
this work on
philosophy.
His
method was
plain;
he wished to induce his readers
to
investigate
and
recognize
the reason of their
existence
and the
meaning
of life. With this
purpose
in
view,
he asked three
questions,
the first
being naturally
that at which Mallock
stops
short:
"
Is there
any justification
for life ? Is it worth
living?"
The second is: "Must this
meaning
of
life be
sought
in what is called the moral order ?
Man s
activity may
be animal or
properly
human;
does the
higher flight
of the
spiritual
allow or re
quire
the sacrifice of what would be excess
in
physiological
tendencies ?"
Olle"-Laprune
was en
gaged
in
analyzing
the same
problem
what con
stitutes
the value of life for man ? It is
closely
connected
with another
question
: Whence
proceeds
the
meaning,
the
significance
of life ?
The third
point
discussed
by
Soloviev
is one more
frequently
overlooked
by contemporary
thinkers,
yet
it is identical
with that which
presents
itself
sooner or later to
every
individual
viz.,
"
What
is
the aim of
my
life ? The direction
of our
voyage
or its
point
of
departure
should be
enough
to
determine
what life
is,
and what it
ought
to
be,
in
its
integral growth
and
development."
The rest of this
preface
has the charm of a
frag
ment of
Bourdaloue, although
it is difficult to
give
any idea of this in a brief resume. Soloviev con-
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
tinues:
"
How can human
activity
be
displayed,
while the
mind does not reflect
upon
these
guiding
principles
? It is an honour to our
generation
to
have
gone
below the surface at which the so-called
thinkers of
the last two centuries
stopped short;
but
the
incoherence of the answers to this
question
flatters the selfish
interests of dilettanti.
Many
have cast aside all
religious
truth under the
pretext
of
securing
intellectual
freedom,
whereas
they
are
really
enslaving
their
intellect to servile
mimicry.
They
fit into
every
kind of
surroundings, provided
that two
conditions are
fulfilled;
their selfish
indolence
must be left
untouched,
and it must be
cloaked and
decked out with
many
subtle and
aesthetic
arguments.
Some
people
are induced
by
pessimism
to
enjoy
life and
indulge
their
caprices.
The mind
solemnly proclaims
that evil is
aggravated
when
perpetrated
by
one of
higher
status. There
fore
they
do not
imitate those whose convictions
lead them to
suicide,
but
quietly yield
to
matter,
and
abandon
every supra-instinctive
element in
life. Are
they
indeed
persuaded
that life has no
meaning
?
Certainly
not
;
they perceive
its
meaning
clearly,
but their own life fails to
satisfy
them,
and
their
cowardice deters them from
any
effort to raise
it. In their
fury
or
despair they
resolve to
forget,
no
matter at what
cost,
and refuse to reflect at all.
The
life-history
of
innumerable
people
at the
present
day might
be summed
up
thus.
Very many
others
try
to avoid reflection
by following
attractive but
barren lines of
thought.
These are
aesthetes,
to
whom life has a
meaning,
because it
possesses
SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST
121
force,
dignity,
and
beauty,
but
they
desire it to be
independent
of all moral
goodness,
for this
imposes
restraints
upon
them,
whereas
they
are seduced
by beauty,
and intoxicated
by splendour
and
power.
Beauty, splendour,
and
power
make
up
the
trinity
which Nietzsche
proposed
to substitute
for that
of
Christianity,
when he said: Slaves
may
adore
a God who became man and humbled
Himself,
but the
strong
refuse to adore
anything except
their own elevation towards the
superman;
in other
words,
the infinite advancement of human
beauty,
human
grandeur,
and human
power.
"
How can we talk of infinite advancement ? In
the
eyes
of these aesthetes
beauty, grandeur,
and
power
constitute the whole of
man,
and
they
end
in the
grave
what
beauty
is there in a
corpse
?
In the ancient world Alexander of Macedon com
bined
power, beauty,
and
grandeur,
and
yet
of
him,
as of
every
other human
being,
it could be said:
He fell down
upon
his
bed,
and knew that he should
die. He was the invincible incarnation
of
power,
magnificence,
and
beauty,
and
yet
he
died,
and left
nothing
but a form devoid of all these
qualities.
Can
any power
be
worthy
of the name that cannot
resist death ?
"
Nietzsche was the
impassioned preacher
of the
body,
the real
self,
the sense of
earth;
and cursed
those who
despised
it
viz.,
Christ and the
pariahs
who
worship
Him. Nietzsche himself adored
nothing
but
bodily beauty
and
strength,
idols
which can save neither themselves nor their adorers.
He failed to see that real
beauty,
majesty,
and
122
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
strength
are
inseparable
from the absolute
Good,
and can
belong
to a creature
subject
to death
only
in so far as
they
are communicated to him
by
and
in this absolute Good. Nietzsche did not notice
that the
Gospel
was not a
message
of death or
mourning,
but the revelation of true
salvation,
joy,
and
light. Christianity,
far from
being
founded
on
death,
is based
upon
the Firstborn
among
the
dead/
and our risen
Lord,
whose
example
is the
guarantee
of His
promise,
offers life
everlasting
to all His followers. Is this a
religion
of
outcasts,
slaves,
and
pariahs
? Do death and resurrection
affect
only
certain classes ? Are Nietzsche and his
supermen
not liable to death ? Before
condemning
the Christian doctrine of
equality,
he would have to
abolish the
equality
of all men in death. If all
have need of
salvation,
how can the
religion
which
alone can save men be the
religion
of slaves ?
"
Christianity
is a foe neither to
beauty
nor to
strength;
it
only
refuses to
recognize strength
in
a weak mortal
drawing
near to
death,
or
beauty
in a
corpse undergoing decay.
Phantoms of
strength
and
beauty,
which are in
reality powerless
and
hideous,
impose
fetters on
man,
but Christ has
delivered us from this
yoke,
and
every
true Christian
comes to
Him,
the Source of all that is indeed
strong
and beautiful. He
rejoices
with the first
soul filled with the
spirit
of
Christianity: My
soul
doth
magnify
the
Lord,
the Lord of
my
salvation;
for He hath done
great things
in
me,
and He is
mighty;
He hath revealed His
power,
and hath
raised the humble/
SOLOVIEV
AS MORALIST
123
"
No one
worships
what is weak and
hideous,
but
all desire to adore what is
strong, great,
and beautiful.
Unhappily many
devise
for themselves
some
vague
chimera
of
strength,
greatness,
and
beauty,
and
rest content with their own
imaginations.
Others
seek for real
strength
and
beauty,
and find at
length
that
they
are
always
identical with the
Good,
whose eternal existence
robs His
worshippers
of
all fear of death.
They
do
not, indeed,
look for
definite
victory
in this
life,
but
expect
it with
assurance
in the future. The former
fancy
that
they
will
invariably triumph
in this
world,
and their
error
exposes
them to
frequent
defeats;
they
fail
to
grasp
the
present,
and their
divinity
dies when
ever death carries off one of their
number;
it lies
buried
in
every cemetery."
These
stirring passages
indicate the
scope
of the
whole
work;
yet
Soloviev had no desire to act as
censor.
"
My
intention,"
he
writes,
"
is not to
preach;
I do not
purpose
to teach virtue or rebuke
vice. For a
plain
mortal like
myself,
such a
design
would not
merely
be
futile,
but it would be
immoral,
since
it would involve an
arrogant
and
unjustifiable
claim to be better than
my neighbours. My object
is not to condemn the accidental
errors,
however
great
they may
be,
which cause men to
stray
from
the
right path,
but I wish to remind
my
readers
that to
every
man is offered a
choice,
to be made
once for
all,
between two courses
involving
morals;
a choice which
ought
to be made with full
knowledge
and
insight,
and which cannot be avoided.
Many
would
prefer
not to make
it,
and desire to
find
124 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
a
middle
course,
not
altogether
bad,
but
yet
not
the
way
of
the
Good;
a
commonplace
and natural
sort of
course,
along
which men and beasts can
saunter. Such is the ideal of which
many
men
dream,
and
they
are
quite
content to
accept
the
German
saying
Allen Tieren
fatal
ist zu
crepieren
(Every
animal is fated to
die),
if
only they may
previously experience
the truth of another similar
proverb:
Jedes
Tierchen hat sein Plaisirchen"
(Every
animal has his own little
enjoyment).
"Such a dream
is,
however,
impossible;
animals
have no
choice,
and follow
passively
the
way
of
empiricism;
but man
must
choose;
he must arrive
at a
personal decision,
formed
by
his
elective
activity,
before he can follow the
path
of moral
passivity.
If he claims then to be
walking
in com
pany
with
brutes,
he
lies,
for
deliberate animalism
involves a
contradiction in
terms. No one decides
in favour of
apathy except by choosing
one of the
two
courses
open
to human
beings
i.e.,
by
de
liberately
preferring
evil
through prejudice against
the Good.
"To
prevent
such
prejudice,
I desire to show the
Good as it
really
is
viz.,
as the
way
of
life,
the one
way
that is
just
and safe for all and in
every respect.
One
thing only
is
necessary
if this
path
is to lead
us to our
goal,
and that
is,
that we
should choose
it. It will lead us to Him who is Good in His
essence,
for it
proceeds
from Him. He alone is
justified
in all His acts and
justifies
our faith in
Him. Even before an
open
coffin,
when
any
other
kind of
reflection
would be out of
place,
man
can
SOLOVIEV
AS MORALIST
125
utter words
of confidence that are the
expression
of his wisdom,
and
say:
Blessed art
Thou,
O
Lord;
Thy
works declare
Thy goodness,
and will
declare
it for ever.
4
For its own
sake,
human life
ought
to be directed
according
to this absolute Good. The life of the
individual,
the life of
society
and
nations,
and the
historical
life of
humanity
are three
spheres
in which
God
justifies
Himself
in
ways
of
goodness
and
justice
but all His
loving dealings
with man are
overlooked
by
the
egoist,
who refuses to make
any
sacrifice
or
any
return of love to God. Even if we
have chosen
the better
path,
the
necessary stages
sometimes
seem
inexplicable,
and one who has
knowingly
chosen
the worse must find them
wholly
incomprehensible.
He will
inevitably
condemn
them
as useless
and
vexatious,
and will resent
every
reminder
of
God,
since it
suggests
that he has
made
a bad choice.
Nevertheless
the
light
that
suddenly
flashes
in the
depth
of his
soul,
and un
expectedly
reveals to his conscience the evil of the
path
that
he has chosen
and followed hitherto,
is
only
another
justification
of God s
goodness."
Three
parts
of the book are devoted
to
working
out this
design.
In the first all traces of
good
in
man are
investigated
with the
precision
of our
psychological
methods.
After
triumphantly
ex
posing
the errors
of
pessimism,
Soloviev
proceeds
to discover
the
philosophical
foundations
of
morality
in the basis
of moral action.
He sees in human
activity
three orientations
that he
approves
as
good;
these are:
(i)
a
tendency
and
ability
to rule
126
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
over
matter,
even the matter which constitutes
our own
bodies;
(2)
the
certainty
of our
solidarity
as human
beings;
and
(3)
the
recognition
of our
mysterious
and inevitable
subjection
to what is
superhuman.
The need of
controlling
matter in ourselves is
manifested first
by
the
feeling
of shame.
Though
slow of
growth
and often
very slightly developed,
and
frequently
cast aside
altogether by
the
will,
the sense of shame nevertheless marks in
every
man the first conscious
working
of his
reason;
his
mind,
hitherto under the
sway
of
matter,
asserts its
superiority,
and seeks in its turn to rule. This
effort of the
spirit
to
subjugate
the
body
is the
principle underlying
asceticism,
which weakens the
flesh to
strengthen
the
spirit.
The
body
is a re
bellious slave
wishing
to
reign supreme, having
to
be
subdued,
for its
duty
is to be a
helper,
not a
tyrant.
Its functions
may vary,
and it
may
become
a
criminal,
but in
Christianity
it rises
gradually
to
the
angelic
virtue of
perfect chastity.
Let him who
can,
understand
this,
said
Jesus
Christ.
The mutual
interdependence
that binds men
together
is both a fact and a
necessity.
It would
be criminal to lead a life from which all altruism
and
compassion
were banished. Asceticism arrived
at the
negative
conclusion: "Love not the
world,
and
put
aside its threefold attractions." But
simple
and honest hearts
prefer
another rule that
is
positive
and more exalted:
"
Love
thy neighbour
as
thyself."
Devotion and
brotherly
love are
sometimes such
conspicuous
characteristics of a
SOLOVIEV
AS MORALIST 127
man that no one refuses to call him
good,
and even
pessimists recognize
his
goodness,
although
they
may
be
ready
to
crucify
him in
anger
at their
defeat.
A student who studies human
psychology
more
deeply
cannot fail to
perceive
that
every
man
by
some
mysterious
instinct knows himself to be
subjected
to what is
superhuman.
Education,
thoughtlessness,
or
worldly
cares sometimes
obscure
this
fact,
which lies at the root of all
morality,
but
if
only
a breath of wind
disperse
the
clouds,
if
only
one man be true to his
mission,
the cornerstone
is
revealed,
and all
acknowledge
that
upon
it their
morality
must be
based,
and this
morality
will be
logical
and
true,
because it is
religious.
This state
ment will be
proved
in the second
part.
Psychology
has not
accomplished
its whole task
when it has
pointed
out in man three natural ele
ments of
morality
viz.,
a
tendency
to asceticism,
a
tendency
to
charity,
and a
tendency
to submit
to the
superhuman.
It
proceeds
to
study
the action
of
these tendencies and the
development
resulting
from
their
being brought
into
activity;
and it is remark
able that man
spontaneously
describes
them as
"
good."
This consideration leads us on to the idea
of
"
better,"
the
conception
of
something
absolutely
desirable,
which should refer not to the individual,
nor to his
well-being,
nor to his
reputation,
nor to his
activity,
and which should not be
sought
on account
of its connection with what is
socially good.
It is
simply
better,
desirable in and for itself. Such
conceptions
are difficult to
put
into
words,
because
128 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
they
raise our
thoughts
to
something higher,
and
are
inspired by experience
and
spontaneously
worked out
by
the mind.
They
lead us to assume
the existence of and to desire an Absolute
Good,
which is
infinitely
desirable,
and here we have the
idea of God.
This is the
culminating point
reached
by psy
chology,
for the
study
of its
objective
value
belongs
to
metaphysics.
Before
passing
on to this
higher
level,
we shall each of us do well to look back on
facts that have come under our own observation.
They
will suffice to condemn
every
kind of
practical
philosophy
that aims at
imposing
itself
upon
the
human
intellect,
without
justifying
its existence
by
definite rational
principles.
No Eudaemonism
and no utilitarianism can
satisfy
our
aspirations,
for
they
are
powerless
to influence our conduct.
An
impartial study
of human
psychology
forces
every
honest thinker to
recognize
a rule of
morality,
anterior and
superior
to the
impulses
of
caprice,
and this rule
proclaims
the existence of
duty.
What is the
origin
of
duty
? The second
part
establishes the
identity
of the Absolute Good
with
God,
really
existent. Thus
duty
cannot
depend
upon
Kant s
postulates,
and can be
imposed
only
by
the Infinite. The human conscience
is the
mouthpiece
of the will of this Infinite
Being,
although
it
may
be so
unconsciously;
but
morality,
which is
fidelity
to the voice of
conscience,
leads men
step
by step
towards God. The effort to do
right gives
freedom to the
spirit
and
prepares
it for
devotion,
which
in its turn
destroys
self-complacency,
and
SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST
129
by
means of this
victory
over
self-will,
inclines
man to
recognize personally,
to adore and to love
Him who is
infinitely good.
Man
might,
however,
still be hindered
by
want
of
experience,
if he could not
keep
in view a model
of this moral
perfection,
and
consequently
the in
finitely good
God offered him the Divine
personality
of
Christ,
whose human
body,
raised on the cross
at the
culminating point
of human
history, displayed
the
triumph
of
asceticism,
of devoted love for man
kind,
and of
worship
of God. This is
why every
upright
soul must choose
Jesus
Christ,
the Son of
Mary,
to be the
guide
of his conscience and the
example
of his
life,
before he
recognizes
God in this
perfect
Man,
and before he even
professes
himself
a Christian.
Only
a few
pages
in the
Justification of
Good are
devoted to this moral influence of
Jesus
Christ;
Soloviev was
right
in thus
condensing
his
arguments,
for he wished to confine himself
strictly
to
philo
sophy.
Elsewhere he described most
accurately
what
Jesus
Christ
ought
to be to
every
Christian
conscience,
but in this work he felt bound to write
with more
reserve,
and
perhaps
his
very
conciseness
renders his
argument
more trenchant.
In
conclusion,
Soloviev
proceeded
to discuss
morals;
he did not
attempt
to determine duties
in
detail,
for each man s conscience must exert itself
to
recognize
God s
way
in the infinite
complexity
of our conditions of life. Soloviev tried to dis
cover the
principles
that
ought
to
guide
our con
science in the continual conflict between
apparently
9
130
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
opposing
duties. He dealt with this
subject
in
the third
part
at considerable
length,
and devoted
ten
chapters
to
studying
"
the action of the Good
throughout
the
history
of mankind." This second
ary
title
suggests
a line of
thought
dear to St.
Augustine;
it
might
seem
pretentious,
had it not
been intended to indicate the simultaneous exist
ence of the historical and
speculative points
of
view.
After
classifying
the
rights
and mutual
obliga
tions of individuals and
societies,
with their founda
tions and
limitations,
Soloviev discusses
fully
the
historical influences that have shed a
progressive
light upon
these
principles.
He arrives at this
conclusion:
"
The
great epochs
in which a conscious
ness of individual
responsibility
and social
obliga
tions became
precise,
and the schools of
philosophy
that exalted either moral
subjectivity
or the
preroga
tives of social
organisms,
all concur in
displaying
the
great harmony
of
Christianity,
which is more
elastic- and more
comprehensive
in its doctrines
than all its distorted
substitutes,
since it has effected
a
genuine
transformation of
history,
and is the
one absolute rule of conduct
;
absolute when
teaching,
absolute when
promising,
and absolute when
commanding."
The same
synthetical power
is
brought
to bear
upon
each of the
following questions:
How does
ethical
teaching
decide the national
question,
or,
in other
words,
the relation between nationalism
and universalism ? How does it
regard
the
problem
of crime and its
repression
? What are its decisions
SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST
131
on economics ? What mutual relations does it
impose
on
public right, legislation,
and
morality
?
What
justification
and what limitation does it
assign
to international warfare ?
This
important
work on the
Justification of
Good
concludes with a
long
and beautiful
chapter
on
the
ideal,
the
"
perfect organization
of
integral
humanity,"
that would be
realized,
if ethical teach
ing
were
freely put
into
practice by
mankind.
Soloviev was too
clear-sighted
and too shrewd a
theologian
to
imagine
that such a
realization was
possible.
He had no
hope
of a sudden
transforma
tion of the
world,
and he was
quite
aware that no
change
would result in the
perfection
which he de
sired. But individuals and
societies are
capable
of
improvement,
and it is
always
worth while to
aim at it.
"
In the
present
state of human
consciousness
there is
peculiar
need for men to exert themselves.
Those who have
discovered for
themselves a satis
factory
and definite solution of the moral
problem,
ought
to
justify
this solution for the sake of others.
When the mind has
triumphed
over its own
doubts,
the heart is not rendered
indifferent to the errors
of
others." One of the chief
attractions of truth
is its
integrity;
it is
incomparably
beautiful and
persuasive,
as
long
as it is not mutilated
by
the
rivalry
of human
passion.
Hence it is most ex
pedient
to show men the
ideal,
the thesis. There is
however,
another
advantage
derived from so
doing
:
with the best will in
the
world,
no end is ever attain
able unless it is
clearly
defined. We must
therefore
1
32
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
study incessantly
and reveal
plainly
God s
design
for human liberties. Thus our
approximations,
though very faulty,
will nevertheless
bring
about
a
real
improvement.
These considerations
justify
several
pages
in
Soloviev s work that at first
sight might
seem
purely
Utopian. They
should be borne in mind
by
the
reader,
and
especially by any
Western
theologian,
who comes in contact for the first time with Solo-
viev s
religious writings,
for
they explain
the
attributes that he is fond of
ascribing,
in an almost
ideal
world,
to the three visible
representatives
of
God s
power.
The
Pontiff,
the
supreme guardian
of Divine
truth with its
spiritual
fruitfulness,
the centre
and
highest point
of the Christian
priesthood,
the
common
father of the visible Church at
every
moment of her historical
existence,
represents
God
in the
sight
of mankind
in
general,
who,
in accord
ance with His
design, may
be identified
with the
Church.
The Pontiff s mission
is to
produce
in
each
soul the
person
of
Jesus
Christ,
so that this
one invisible Head of human
society may acquire
in that soul the fulness of His
mystical
body.
A second task is
assigned
to the ruler of each
Christian
State,
"
to the
imperial
element
of Christian
theocracy."
It is a task subordinate
to the
first;
and must not be absorbed
by,
nor confused
with,
nor
separated
from it. The ruler s task
is to
organize
the social and
political
order
according
to the truth of
religious principles.
It is not
necessarily
universal, but,
being
limited to national
SOLOVIEV AS MORALIST
133
boundaries,
is destined to
produce
the
practical
conditions and external means of
development
both
for individuals and
societies,
so that
they may
attain to their full worth as men with a view to
becoming
more and more like God.
"
Christ s
priesthood
is
perpetuated
in and
by
the
Sovereign
Pontiff;
His
kingship
is
delegated
to
the rulers of various States.
Finally,
His
sanctity
and the
extraordinary graces
of His
humanity
are
the
object
of a third mission. From time to time
God chooses certain
men,
and fills them with His
spirit
for the salvation of their brethren. In word
or deed
they
are true
prophets. Being subject
to
the twofold
authority
of
pontiffs
and
sovereigns,
they
are sometimes constrained to rebuke and
condemn the
very
men who are
pontiffs
or sove
reigns. They
are bound to God
by
the hierarchical
Church of
Jesus
Christ,
and are
placed by
Him in a
civil
society,
so that
they
have no
right
to refuse
lawful
subordination;
on the other
hand,
as their
mission is at
stake,
they
must not behave like dumb
dogs."
Supposing
that,
throughout
the
world,
the
universal
Pontiff,
the
supreme
ruler of each
State,
and the
prophet divinely
chosen
co-operate,
and
each in his
proper sphere
collaborates with the
others,
how
rapid
will be the advance of
mankind !
"
What is
good
from the
economic,
the
social,
the
moral,
and the
religious points
of view would thrive
together,
and
men,
grouped
at last in a Church
that was
literally
universal,
would
accomplish
God s
design.
In the future all would attain to
the
I
34
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
plenitude
of
being
that God intended them to
possess,
the
mysterious
individual and collective
divinization that He
promises
to the creatures
that
He made out of
nothing,
in order to fashion them to
His own likeness."
Considerations of this kind were most attractive
to Solovie
v,
but
they carry
us
beyond
the domain
of
philosophy, strictly
so-called.
In the conscience
of our
contemporaries,
still
impregnated
with
Christianity
and influenced
by grace, psychology
can trace the
germs
of these
high thoughts
and some
tendency
on the
part
of the soul to rise above the
level of mankind. But the
precise
notion,
the
reasonable
hope
and
practical
realization
of this
divinization,
are
beyond
the
scope
of our natural
sciences;
only
a divine communication
can make
them accessible to us.
"
This
communication,
desired
by
God,
opens
to
our minds a new
sphere
of
study
and
contemplation
;
the innermost
depths
of the Godhead become
accessible to
theology
and
mysticism."
When Soloviev
published
his
Justification
of
Good,
he had for
twenty years
been
studying
theology;
it is therefore
not
surprising
that his
philosophical
work tended to direct his readers
attention
towards
his favourite
pursuit.
We are now confronted
by
the
question:
"
To
what conclusions
did his
religious investigations,
being perfectly
sincere,
lead him ?" We shall
make this the chief
point
in
dealing
with his theo
logical
works.
CHAPTER VIII
THE BEGINNING OF SOLOVIEV S WORK AS A
THEOLOGIAN :
"
EARLY ESSAYS
"
- -
"
THE
GREAT DEBATE
" "
JUDAISM
AND CHRIS
TIANITY
"
IN
Chapter
V. we saw what
painful problems
caused Soloviev to turn his attention to
theology.
His
anxiety regarding religion betrayed
itself even
in his earliest
works;
their author
evidently
desired
to follow God and to
bring
others to
Him,
but
he had not
yet
discovered with
certainty
what
path
to take. His
essay
entitled The Three
Forces,
published
in
1877,
and others on Universal Thean-
drism,
that
appeared
between
1877
and
1881,
all
show
plainly
that his aim was to
promote
in the
world the
designs
of
Jesus
Christ. This motive
underlay
all his efforts to the end of his
life,
and it
may
be defined as a desire to assist Christ in the
task of
rendering
mankind in
general
divine.
The means of
attaining
this end were left
vague,
or
rather, Soloviev,
being
still under the influence
of his
early Slavophile impressions, thought
that
the restoration of
Christianity
in the world was
a task
assigned
to Russia and the Orthodox
Church.
136
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
He did not
deny
the merits of Rome in the
past,
but took it for
granted
that the Western Church
had now fallen into
decay.
In the theandric Person
of
Jesus
Christ,
as well as in His
mystical body,
the West seemed to see and revere
only
the human ,
material,
and outward element. At a
very early
date it
yielded
to the
temptation
to enforce belief
by
violence,
and this evil had continued to
grow.
From the time of St. Anselm
onward,
a
legal
fiction
had been
gradually taking
the
place
of faith in the
Roman Church. Love of Christ had been
regarded
as
unnecessary
and the ecclesiastical
supremacy
was
all that was needed.
Against
this brute forcefulness that
professed
to be
religious,
the Reformers raised their
protest;
but,
being
themselves infected with the Western
poison
and
by
individualism,
they produced merely
a human
work,
which
finally
led to unbelief. Pro
testant
influence,
whether
rationalistic,
Hegelian,
or
materialistic,
became a
scourge
to
Christianity.
According
to Russian
prejudices,
which Soloviev
accepted
in his
early essays,
Romanism had con
tinued to
decay
until at
length
it fell a
prey
to
Jesuitism,
and,
having
thus reached the climax
of
misfortune,
it lost
every
Christian
virtue;
the
papal supremacy
and the material
authority
of the
Church took the
place
of
everything
else.
This idea of Romanism is current in the
East,
and with all
good
faith Soloviev confirmed it
by
a
personal
anecdote. He stated that in Paris a
French
Jesuit
had,
in his
presence,
denied the
possibility
of still
accepting
the
dogmas
of
Chris-
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
137
tianity,
and
especially
the
Divinity
of
Jesus
Christ,
but
nevertheless,
"
in the name of civilization and
in the interest of the human
race,"
he still
required
the world to submit to the Catholic Church. Solo-
viev s
honesty
is above
suspicion,
but in 1880 he
still
employed
the name
"
Jesuit
"
in the usual
Russian
manner,
as
designating any
member of
the Catholic
clergy
or of a
religious congregation.*
Before 1886 Soloviev was not
acquainted
with
any
real
Jesuit
;
the first members of the
Society
of
Jesus
with whom he had
any
intercourse were the
Fathers
Gagarin,
Martinov,
and
Pierling.
He soon
became their
friend,
and the
correspondence
that
passed
between them shows how
great
a
place
our
Lord and Saviour
Jesus
Christ
occupied
in their
minds and hearts. No member of the
Society
of
Jesus
was
responsible
for the
blasphemy
recorded
in Soloviev s last lecture on Theandrism.
Soloviev himself was aware of the
mistake,
and
he never knew the name of the
priest
who made the
remark to him. Before 1880 he had been in Paris
twice,
but had come into contact with Catholic
priests only through
Vladimir Guette"e. This un
happy apostate,
subsidized
by
the
Holy Synod,
had
been
enthusiastically
extolled
by
a semi-official
section of the Orthodox
press.
Soloviev was
destined soon to know him better and to ascertain
his lax
morality.
Guettee s hatred of the Roman
Church was so intense that
every
means of
bringing
*
The Russian code sanctions this misuse. In vol.
ix.,
article
459,
ed.
1899,
we read:
"
Jesuits
of all
orders
are
forbidden to enter Russia under
any pretext,"
138
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
it into
disrepute
seemed
permissible,
and his
hostility
to the Catholic
clergy
knew no
bounds,
for he had deserted its ranks
by
a
pretended
marriage
as well as
by apostasy.
Such a man would shrink
from no
trickery,
however
base,
if
only
he could
implant
anti-Roman
prejudices
in the mind of a
man like Soloviev.
In
any
case,
if at first Soloviev was taken in
by
his fraudulent
device,
it could not
long
hold its
ground against
truth and
experience,
and
very
soon Guette"e hurled maledictions
upon
the
"
Jesuit
ism
"
of this
Russian,
who became
"
more
popish
than Bellarmine."
Anti
-
Roman
prejudices,
such as we have
mentioned,
were
universally accepted
as true in
Russia. Honest believers knew the Western Church
chiefly
from four series of documents
viz.,
Protest
ant
compilations published
in
Germany,
anticlerical
pamphlets
from
France,
the
"
traditions
"
of
Constantinople,
and the national
controversy
on
the Polish
question.
Loyal
souls
may
well be misled
by
such a con
sensus of false
reports,
and their
complaints,
often
most
extraordinary, keep
alive
prejudices
that seem
ridiculous
to a reader who knows their wish to be
honest.
For
instance,
Alexis
Stephanovitch
Kho-
miakov,
a man of
generous
nature,
ardently
desired
the reunion of the Eastern and Western
Churches,
and laboured to effect it between
1840
and 1860.
Yet he uses with full conviction
phrases
such as:
"
Romanism
is
only
the oldest form of Protestant
ism,"
and elsewhere
he makes a
remark,
that is
SOLO VIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
139
more
startling
in the
East,
where for centuries the
idea of national churches has
prevailed:
"
Romanism
is
nothing
but
separatism
... do not shut
your
eyes
to the
fact;
the
separatism
of the Western
Roman Church is
evident,
and is the one formidable
scourge
for
humanity."*
Now Khomiakov was a wise and honest
man,
whom
many
Russians
suspected
of excessive
sym
pathy
with Rome. The more moderate
party
derived their
knowledge
of Catholicism from his
works,
and Soloviev at first did the same. This
fact is
enough
to account for his
contempt
of
Romanism as the
"
implacable
foe of all
progress
both intellectual and
social,
disdaining
and
destroy
ing
all
personal dignity."
In
spite
of the violence
of his
opinions,
a certain amount of reserve shown
with
regard
to traditional
prejudices exposed
Solo
viev even then to the
hostility
of the extreme
Slavophile party.
It was
necessary
to recall these
original prejudices
and the influence of his Orthodox
surroundings,
in order to
appreciate
the distance traversed
by
Let ters to Archdeacon Palmer. William
Palmer,
fellow of
Magdalen College,
Oxford,
was in
1840
commissioned
by
the
Anglican Bishops
to
go
to
Russia,
in order to
study
the means of
forming
an
Anglo-Russian
Church. He wrote
several books on the
subject
of his
travels, interviews,
and
plans.
His
study
and
experience gradually
convinced him
that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of divine
origin,
and he became a convert some
years
before his death.
He never lost interest in the
religious
future of Russia. His
valuable
library, bequeathed
to Fathers
Gagarin
and
Martinov,
is one of the treasures of the Slav
Library
in
Brussels.
I
4
o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Soloviev and his
courage
in
assuming
another
intellectual
attitude,
in the face of his fellow-
countrymen.
Certain facts caused him to doubt the
justice
of the Russian national
antipathy
to
Rome, and,
although
his time was
fully occupied
with his
philosophical
work,
he resolved to find out the truth.
The task seemed
likely
to be
overwhelming,
but,
if
his efforts were to be rewarded with the
truth,
the
labour involved was
nothing
to Soloviev. He
devoted himself heart and soul to the
work,
in which
a
comparatively
small
part
was
played by
handbooks
dealing
with the Eastern and Western Churches.
He
preferred
to
study
the
great
authors and their
works at first hand.
He read the Acts of the Councils in Mansi s folio
edition,
and studied
history
and tradition in
Migne
s
Greek and Latin
patrologies.
The abundant notes
that he took
gave
rise to a number of
very personal
articles on the Fathers of the Church. His favourite
authors were St.
Justin,
St.
Irenaeus,
Origen,
the
two St.
Cyrils,
St.
Gregory
the
Theologian,
St.
John Chrysostom,
St.
John
Damascene,
and
among
the Latin Fathers he
highly
esteemed,
next to
St.
Augustine,
Tertullian,
St.
Cyprian,
and St.
Gregory
the Great. This list is not exhaustive.
After the
discovery
of the
Didache,
he studied it
so
carefully
that he was asked to
publish
his Russian
translation of this
precious
record of the first
century
of
Christianity.
The introduction to it is
worthy
of notice. In it he
points
out that this document
shows how,
from the earliest time of
Christianity,
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
141
Providence has
always coupled
with the
perpetuity
of the
hierarchy,
of
dogma,
and of the sacraments
a
possibility
of
development
in their outward
manifestation. The Orthodox Church makes of
this
process
in the Catholic Church a
charge
of
innovation.
It is not
surprising
that this
essay
roused much
hostile
criticism,
but Soloviev was not
unprepared
for
it;
in
fact,
he had foreseen it from the time when
he
began
to revise his works on
history
and
dogma,
and in
spite
of all
opposition
he continued his re
vision most
conscientiously. Byzantinism, being
antagonistic
to
everything
Roman,
has
spread
rumours,
more or less
fanciful,
all over the
East;
and
Russia,
so
long
isolated from other
nations,
continues to
propagate
this
jealous hostility.
Solo
viev
investigated
all the
strange
ideas current on
the
subject
of Western
Christianity; they
were not
all
unreasonable,
and
some,
though
false,
could be
explained
as
plausible. Many
real faults
inevitably
occur in
every
human
society,
and even
among
the
representatives
of divine truth. Catholic
historians made no secret of the
fact,
and their
opponents
had no
right
to be scandalized at it.
Soloviev
expressed
his
opinion
on the
subject quite
frankly.
In 1881 he ventured for the first time to criticize
the
spiritual power
in
Russia,
and to
reproach
the
Holy Synod
for its
inactivity.
Love,
he
says,
is
always
active,
and a Christian
hierarchy,
with no
love of
Christ,
has no
right
to exist. The task
assigned
to the
spiritual authority
is to
spread
142
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
abroad the
spirit
of
love;
it
ought
to effect a more
and more
perfect
realization of the first three
petitions
of the Pater Noster. Now the sole result
of the
Synod
s administration has been to
multiply
sects,
in which hatred of the official church is the
sole bond of union. Does the actual
process
of
enslavement
imply
that the Russian
hierarchy
has
ceased to believe in the action of the
Holy
Ghost ?
If
so,
we could understand
why
it no
longer
even
attempted
to win the world to Christ
through charity.
Criticism such as this was
very daring
in Russia
in
1880,
but the Orthodox
party judged
it
leniently,
because the Roman
hierarchy
was much more
severely
condemned than that of the
Holy Synod.
Soloviev went on to
say
that,
in the
West,
the
Pope
has taken the
place
of
Christ,
and Protestantism
ignores
Christ
altogether
He added
that,
amidst
the
general
enslavement of mind in the
East,
Orthodox Russia alone had
respected liberty
of
conscience until the
eighteenth century.
Several of these reservations
disappeared
in the
three discourses delivered in
1881, 1882,
1883,
in
commemoration of
Dostoievsky
s death. In each
of them Soloviev discussed the
great
novelist s
idea of the
Church;
and no
subject
could have been
better suited to draw forth from the
speaker
his
own
personal opinions.
In the
panegyric
delivered in 1881 Soloviev still
restricted himself to
generalities;
he showed that
the author of The House
of
the Dead aimed at
expanding
and
uniting
the minds of
men,
and
that,
at least in his later
years,
he
perceived
how the
SOLOVIEV^AS
THEOLOGIAN
143
Church, and,
of
course,
a
Universal
Church,
ought
to
be the true
school of
greatness,
and the one
stronghold
where souls meet
together.
In
the
discourse
delivered on
February
i, 1882,
Soloviev
struck a new
note. It is in Christ
alone,
he
said,
that all
mankind can find the
principle
of
unity
and
freedom. This idea
dominated all
Dostoievsky
s
thought,
and
acquired
such
supremacy
over his
mind that
thenceforth
Christianity
ceased
to be to him a
distant
imagination.
It became a
living
and
active
reality,
influencing
all
loyal
souls
and men of
good
will.
Dostoievsky
would not
have
conceived of
it,
said
Soloviev,
as a finished
temple,
a
marvel of
architecture
perhaps,
but
without a
soul,
nor as a
flame hidden within each
conscience. He
desired it to shed its
rays
outward,
and to
expand
the
piety
of
individuals so as to affect
the
whole
world.
"
His aim was to
point
out to
the Slavs the
furrow
that
Providence invites them
to
dig,
in
the field
where the One Father of the human
race calls all
nations to
labour
together."
In
these
two
panegyrics
Soloviev s
comments
upon
Dostoievsky
s
works
and
thoughts
might
be
criticized,
but it still
seemed that no one had
any
right
to
complain,
except
the most
intolerant of
the
Slavophile
party.
The
third
discourse had a
wider
range
of
subjects,
and
attracted as much
attention as
the
lecture
given
by
Dostoievsky
himself in
1880,
on
the
occasion of
the
erection of
Pouchkine s
monument.
After
alluding
to
the
material
development
of
Russia,
accomplished
by
Alexander
II.,
Soloviev
I
44
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
boldly
attacked
"
the scandalous
separation
of the
East from the West. This
separation
has no
right
to
exist,
and has
been,
and
is,
a
great
sin. At the
moment when
Byzantium perpetrated
this
offence,
God called Russia into existence that she
might
make it
good.
At the
present
time Russia is mature
and is
attaining
to
fully
self-conscious
thought.
The
question presents
itself to her: Shall Russia
carry
on the historical
wrong
committed
by
the
Byzantine
Empire
? There followed a twofold
apology
for the Roman Church. From the historical
point
of view Rome had offered
magnificent
re
sistance to
every
outbreak of anti-Christian
feeling,
to
heresies, Mahometanism,
and the
pagan develop
ments of modern civilization.
Practically
she has
never
abandoned,
but
perseveres
in her
glorious
attempt
to
sanctify
the whole human race:
"
Rome
is
truly
Christian,
for she is universal."
It is
easy
to
imagine
the consternation
caused
by
such
words;
and it was
intensified,
rather than
diminished,
by
the
closing passage
regarding
the
mission of the Russian nation.
According
to
Dostoievsky,
Russia was called to effect a
rapproche
ment between East and
West,
to unite them in
the
harmony
of divine truth and human
liberty.
"
Let us not
reproach
the West with its
faults,
however
real;
we cannot
put
ourselves
in the
place
of
others; but,
when others do
wrong,
we can do
right."
The
publication
of this discourse
did not
lessen its
effect;
on the
contrary,
an
appendix
emphasized
the
leading thought
in it. K. N.
Leontiev,
a writer of
Slavophile
tendencies,
tried
SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN
145
to claim
Dostoievsky
as the
promoter
of a
vague
kind of
Neo-Christianity,
but Soloviev
vigorously
rejected
this
imputation.
Neo-Christianity
is,
he
said,
nothing
but
pure
humanism,
and
Dostoievsky
would
certainly
have had
nothing
to do with
it,
for he used to
say:
"
Christ is known
only by
the
Church;
love the Church above
everything."
God
designed
the Church to embrace all
mankind,
rendered divine
by
Christ; since,
as St. Athanasius
remarks,
Christ became man to make man God.
This faith is
truly
Christian,
and in
agreement
with
Orthodoxy
and the tradition of the
Fathers,
and it leads to a
reality
that the New Testament
describes in two
phrases"
God all in
all,"
"
One
flock and one
Shepherd."
The Church
triumphant
will
complete
this
harmony
of the
world,
which can
not be the outcome of
any Neo-Christianity
without
Christ,
but which will result from men s common
faith in the
personal divinity
of the Nazarene
crucified
by
Pontius Pilate.
The excitement
produced by
this
panegyric,
pronounced
on
February 19, 1883,
had not died
out,
when it was revived and intensified
by
the
publica
tion,
in the same
year,
of an
important
didactic
work. The Great Debate and Christian
Polity
caused
in Russia a sensation
comparable
to that which
Newman s famous Tract
90 produced
in
England.
One
chapter
in
particular gave
much
offence,
viz.,
that on
Papism
and the
Papacy.
It showed
that much darkness still obscured the author s
mind,
but the
light
was
evidently breaking through,
10
146
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
and his
honesty
of
purpose
led him to
give expres
sion to some
singularly
bold conclusions.
In these
pages,
with wonderful
vigour
and conciseness,
he
analyzed
the
religious
attitude of Russia in his own
day
under all its
aspects.
The
great
Debate is the
antagonism
between
East and
West,
that has lasted for
centuries,
and
dates back almost to the
beginning
of
Christianity.
From the earliest times and for various
reasons,
many being utterly
futile,
a conflict of tendencies
has
separated
the two halves of
Europe.
In the
East man is more
contemplative,
and
willingly
gives way
to indolence
and
passivity;
being
selfish
and
lazy,
he is
apt
to excuse his indifference
towards
his
neighbours by pleading
his devotion to God
alone. In the
West,
on the
contrary,
man thinks
only
of
action,
and would
readily
be satisfied with
a
purely
human
greatness.
He would be contented
with a deified
man,
or even with the deification of
humanity
in the
abstract,
or of
strength
and
genius.
His innate
tendency
is to make human
life,
with
its
progress
and
activity,
the
object
of his cultus.
The
principles
of
Christianity
restrain these
different tendencies
from
excess,
and
lay
hold of
and unite what is
good
in each
by
revealing
to the
world the
Man-God,
God made Man.
The West is
tree, therefore,
to adore
activity,
human
indeed,
but
humble, submissive,
and
resigned
to
pain.
These virtues commend themselves
to the Eastern
mind,
but it has to
grasp
the fact that God is not
indifferent to the
destiny
of
man,
but
deigned
to
impose upon
Himself
a thankless
task and a
painful
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
147
death,
in order to save those whom He calls His
brethren.
These habitual tendencies cause men to rebel
against
the
teaching
of the
Man-God,
where it
displeases
them. The
spirit
of the West raises its
pride, intolerance,
and the skill of its
ruling
class
in
opposition
to
Christ;
the Roman
Empire
had re
course to
persecution
in order to withstand Chris
tianity.
The more subtle Eastern
character,
on
the other
hand,
opposes Christianity by
its
gnosis
and
heresy.
It
sought
to exalt God
very
far above
man,
so that the Father alone should be
God,
and
Christ His creature this is
Arianism;
or His
helper
this is the
heresy
of
Nestorius;
or His
instrument,
devoid of
liberty
and free will this
is the
monothelite version of an error that was
always fundamentally
the same. Later
on,
the
same view of the relation between God and man
inspired
the
frenzy
of the Iconoclasts in
Byzantium,
and was
responsible
for the
triumph
of Mahometan-
ism,
which
developed
the twofold
principle
of
individual fatalism and of social
passivity
in the
presence
of a
Deity solitary,
inaccessible,
and
inhuman.
Evidently
the
saints, ascetics,
and
great
monks
of the East and West
preserved
the true
spirit
of
Christianity,
and
struggled against
the still
vigorous
spirit
of
paganism, striving
to restore and unite all in
Christ. But national exclusivism came forward to
thwart
them,
and in the East this became a
recog
nized
principle; Constantinople,
the second
Rome,
and
Moscow,
the third
Rome,
had from remote
148
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
ages
been
evolving
the race
spirit
that rends the
Eastern
Church,
whenever a new State is
organized.
The individual
egotism
of the East
developed
into
national
egotism,
and
Byzantium, always
richer
in
theologians
than in true
Christians,
strove to
find
justification
for this
pagan apathy,
as if
Christ,
because He loved His
country,
for that reason
sanctioned all the narrowness of
Judaism.
In contrast with these evils in the
East,
Soloviev
discussed those of the
West,
where also natural
tendencies had tried to reassert
themselves,
after
the first
triumph
of
Christianity.
Pride,
the need
of human
applause,
a desire to
replace
God
by
man,
and the intoxication of
power,
had
gradually per
verted the
hierarchy,
and the
Popes
determined to
restore the ancient Csesarism for their own
advantage.
In
fact,
according
to
Soloviev,
they
were
preparing
terrible disasters for the
Church, and,
following
their
example,
the
kings
and nations of the West
desire a universal
dominion,
that shall have absolute
control over men s minds and bodies. The con
stitutions of Protestant States with the motto
Cuius
regio
eius
religio,
the
Caesaropapism
of
Henry
VIII.
, Elizabeth,
and their
successors,
the
forms of
worship organized
and
enforced,
under
pain
of the
guillotine, by
the
Jacobin party during
the French Revolution all these were modelled
on the
example
set
by
the
Papacy.
At this
point begins
the central
chapter
of the
book,
Papism
and the
Papacy.
Before
beginning
it,
Soloviev
gave
a short
summary
of the
opinions
already expressed.
He believed that the conflict
SOLOVIE V AS THEOLOGIAN
149
between the tendencies of the East and West
respectively
had been the true cause of the
great
schism of
1054,
the
dispute
as to the insertion of
the word
Filioque
in the Creed
having
served as
a
pretext
for it. The fact was that the
spirit
of
paganism
had
triumphed
on both sides. Without
reflecting
that
they
were about to divide the
mystical body
of
Christ,
the Eastern nations desired
to secure their ecclesiastical
independence,
in order
that their
religious
exclusivism
might
add
strength
to their national exclusivism. The Western nations
had
attempted
to set
up
a
purely
human
dominion,
a violent and material
absolutism,
that should
establish on earth the
Kingdom
of God. Such
was,
in Soloviev s
opinion,
the real cause of the
long-
lasting
schism : human
passions
had taken the
place
of God s will.
Sometimes
arguments
are
put
forward,
which
are
apt
to mislead narrow
minds,
as is the case
nowadays
with the Polish
question.
But the
Polish,
the
Eastern,
and even the
Jewish questions
all
revert to this fundamental
problem:
how can we
secure the collaboration of East and
West,
of all
who love
Christ,
either here or
there,
in order to
realize God s
design
on
earth,
in
sight
of
heaven,
and add to His
Kingdom,
the
body
of Christ ?
Soloviev answered
boldly:
"
Let us
ask,
not
Papism,
but the
Papacy
for the solution.
Papism
that is
arbitrary,
absolute,
and violent must in
evitably
rouse the
indignation
of
mankind;
but need
we condemn the
Papacy
in the same breath ? Let
us
try
to be
impartial;
we Russians
always
dread
1
5
o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Rome as a
foreign
and even hostile
power.
Can
we not see
clearly
that in
every
Kulturkampf
of
the
West,
the enemies of Roman Catholicism
are
at the same time
opposed
to all
positive
religion
?
We cannot then
ally
ourselves with them.
If we
fancy
the Roman Church
to be like
Peter, cutting
off Malchus s
ear,
her enemies
in the West
resemble
Judas;
if we assume
that,
like Peter on
Thabor,
a
Catholic talks like a
parrot,
and knows not what he
.says,
his enemies in the W
T
est
speak
like those who
struck
Christ,
and bade Him
say
who had struck
Him,
or like those who cried:
Tolle,
tolle !"
In contrast to anti-Christian coalitions,
Rome
presents
to the world the
spectacle
of ecclesiastical
union,
centralization
of the hierarchical
authority,
and affirmation of
supreme
authority.
Three
questions
will serve to
justify
or condemn
this threefold claim on the
part
of the Roman
Church :
1. Is the
unity
of a central
power
essential
to
the Church of Christ ?
2. With what
right
is this
power
connected
with
the
episcopal
See of Rome ?
3.
What use has Rome made of this
power
?
The first
question
amounts,
as Soloviev
says,
to
asking
whether the Church as
such,
in
spite
of her
unchanging
character,
has
any right
and
duty
to
play
a
part
in the world s
history,
and to make
her
own
history
on earth
viz.,
the
history
of her
conflict with evil. If this
question
is answered
in
the
affirmative,
it is
impossible
to
deny
the
necessity
of visible
unity,
with a
disciplined,
hierarchical
SOLOVIEV
AS THEOLOGIAN 15*
organization.
Yet
people
maintain
that
.this
is
contrary
to the
spiritual
nature of the Church,
for
the
religion
of the
Spirit
can
dispense
with
authority,
being,
like God and
Christ,
absolute truth.
Soloviev
pointed
out that this was a fundamental
mistake,
since
God, Christ,
and the Church
are
not
only
truth,
but also
authority
Via,
veritas,
et vita. In the first
place they
are the
way,
and this
is
necessarily objective
and
independent
of
caprice,
in
short,
it is
authority.
Along
this
way
the multi
tudes
ought
to advance in the midst of foes within
and
without,
warring against
the Church.
They
need the
guidance
of visible leaders,
who walk
with them and never lose touch with them. Under
these conditions the
religious
advancement
of
Christianity
must
inevitably bring
about a
progres
sive
centralization,
in order to maintain
unaltered
the influence and
visibility
of the
shepherds
of the
flock. The
special
mission of the
bishops
must be
discernible
at the first
glance,
and their union with
one another revealed
in the
supremacy
of the
patriarchs.
As
early
as the second
century
Irenaeus
taught explicitly
that Rome was the
only possible
centre of ecclesiastical
organization.
Hence Irenaeus
supplies
the answer to the second
question,
why
Rome is the hierarchical
centre of the Church.
He
points
out that Providence,
directing
the course
of
history,
has shown
plainly
that there is either no
centre
of the
Church,
or that it is located
in
Rome.
But what is the extent of this
authority
? And
how can we decide whether it has been exercised
152 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
legitimately
or not ? On this
subject
Soloviev
seems
uncertain. The first
part
of his answer is
correct: The
authority
conferred
by
orders and the
sacramental
power
are the same in the
Pope
and in
all the other
bishops.
The words of
consecration
are no less efficacious when
pronounced by
an
ordinary priest
than when uttered
by
the
Pope.
His
personal
duty
with
regard
to revealed truth
requires
him to
profess
the same faith as
every
other
Catholic,
priest
or
layman.
He is not the source
of
revelation,
and has no more
authority
than a
layman
to
change
or add to it. Thus far Soloviev
is in
agreement
with the
teaching
of the
Popes,
as
to the
power
that
they
received from
Christ;
but
the second
part
of his answer to this
question
is
very
inaccurate. Without
considering
whether the
primitive
revelation did not
require
to be defended
against
its
enemies,
and
brought
back to
light,
he
begins
at once to examine what constitutes the
authority
of
jurisdiction
that the
Pope possesses,
and he defines it thus: The
right
to control all the
worldly
business of the
Church,
and to concentrate
all her
forces,
in order to
promote
God s work in
every age.
Soloviev here makes a
strange
distinction
contrary
to his usual
method, and,
ceasing
to
regard
the
Pope
s mission as
divine,
aims at sub
ordinating
the
papal authority
to the
personal
value of the man.
"
The name Head of the Church
cannot,"
he
says,
"be
given
to all the
Popes; only
those deserve it in whom Christian
humanity
has
recognized
the Eternal Pontiff." To these
worthy
representatives
of
Jesus
Christ,
Eastern Christians
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
153
give
without hesitation the title of
Caput
Ecdesiae,
ascribed in the Russian
liturgy
to St. Leo the
Pope
(February 18).
In
fact,
continues
Soloviev,
the
Pope
s
primacy
requires
of him service rather than
government,
and the man on whom this office is conferred
ought
to think not of his own
power
but of the common
welfare of the Church.
Judicial
formulae
convey
no title in the
Church;
Leo and
Gregory
relied on
the faith and on the
Gospel,
and these sufficed to
obtain for them the
recognition
and obedience of
Christendom. These
Popes
exercised the lawful
authority
of the
Papacy.
Others desired to
promote
Papism
and to
subject
all
spiritual
life to their
personal power;
and
thus,
by
a curious
revenge
on the
part
of
Providence,
they brought
about the
Protestant revolt
against
Rome
Papism
was the
cause of the
decay
of the
Papacy.
Ever since the
Reformation,
says
Soloviev,
the Italian
Popes
have
kept
the
spiritual power
in the hands of
Italians,
being
anxious for
Italy
to hold
sway
over the world
of souls.
Here,
again,
Providence has chastised
human
ambition,
and the national exclusivism of
the
Popes suggested
the first idea of Italian national
ism. The Italian
Popes
first
originated
and en
couraged
the
conception
of a united
Italy,
such as
has
just
been
organized
in
opposition
to them.
If these
warnings
on the
part
of Providence do
not succeed in
reminding
men that the
Catholicity
of the Church should
triumph
over all
private
patriotism,
other chastisements will be
inflicted;
a
heresy originating
with the advocates of a united
154
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Italy might
remove
abuses,
but its
consequences
would be more disastrous to the
Church,
to the souls
of
men,
and to the
Papacy
than
Anglicanism
or
Gallicanism.
Such is a brief and
impartial
resume of this famous
Chapter
VI.
Many people
in Russia considered it
a
daring apology
for Rome and a
public
declaration
of
apostasy,
but to a Western critic it seems to mark
a
stage
but not a
stopping-place
on Soloviev s
path.
Our interest
centres,
not in the conclusions
at which he
arrived,
for
they
are still
very vague,
and were soon revised
by
the author
himself,
but
in his frankness and in the
honesty
of his
attempt
to
understand and reconcile minds and hearts. We shall
notice
only
this
point
of view from the last
chapter,
the other ideas in which will be discussed elsewhere.
To
pave
the
way
for a reunion between the Eastern
and Western
Churches,
Soloviev
begged
each
member of both to consent to do two
things
viz.,
to
render his own union with Christ more sure and
close,
and to revere in his
neighbour
s soul the active life
of the
Holy
Ghost.
Development
of
grace
cannot
take
place
without an increase of
charity,
and
super
natural
charity
in souls leads to mutual understand
ing,
and so effects a union of
spirit,
based on no
artificial
compromise,
but on the truth of
Christ,
who is indivisible.
The storm raised
by
The Great Debate and Christian
Politics forced Soloviev to define
precisely
his
position.
The trial of Newman before the Court of
Arches had had the same effect in former
years.
In the first
place
the
press
accused Soloviev of
SOLOV1EV AS THEOLOGIAN
155
Polonism,
but he had no
difficulty
in
refuting
this
calumny
in an article on The Entente with Rome
and the Moscow
Papers.
In it he
argued
that to
propose
a
diplomatic
understanding
with Rome
on the Polish
question,
and a
religious
understand
ing
with her
apart
from this
question,
could not
fairly
be called Polonism. On the
contrary,
such
a
proposal
distinguished clearly
the
political
and the
religious questions.
If the
only representatives
of Catholicism in Russia continued to be the
Poles,
national
rivalry
would
aggravate
the
religious
cleavage,
but a
nuncio,
who had
nothing
to do with
Poland,
could act
independently
in both matters.
About this time Dr.
Reinkens,
Bishop
of the Old
Catholics in
Germany,
was
seeking support
from
the Eastern
Churches,
and his
appeal
had aroused
some
sympathy
in Russia. Soloviev was sounded
on the
subject,
and asked whether the
proposed
alliance
might
not
prove
the means of
reconciling
the anti-Roman
prejudices
of the Russians with
his own universalist
aspirations.
His answer was
most
emphatic,
and more trenchant than
perhaps
any
other of his
utterances,
for he was a man
of
gentle disposition.
He declared the
position
of the Old Catholics to be
fatally
inconsistent.
"
Though
I
deeply regret,"
he
said,
"
the
separation
between East and
West,
I understand it
perfectly,
and understand also their
separate organizations,
as well as Protestant individualism. The Church
of
tradition,
the Church of
authority,
the claim
to
freedom these three ideas account for the
antagonism existing
between the
supporters
of
1
56 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
each. But have the Old Catholics
any
excuse at
all for their
isolation ? If their
appeal
to tradition
were
honest,
they ought
to
join
the Eastern
Church;
if
they
wish to throw off
ecclesiastical
authority,
they
should call
themselves Protestants. In
any
case
they
should abandon the use of the name
Catholic,
because
they
are not
inspired by any
idea
of a
universal
Church.
They
are,
in
fact,
separatists,
endowed in the
country
that
planned,
desired,
and
favoured their schism.
They might
as well call
themselves
Bismarck s
Church. Russia has no
need of
intercourse with
people
so
isolated, but,
on
the other
hand,
she cannot refrain from
coming
into
touch with Rome."
This
opposition
to the Old Catholic movement
intensified the
suspicion
with which Soloviev was
regarded,
and increased the number of his enemies.
Without
defending
himself
directly,
he
attempted
to
convince,
and so to
disarm,
his
adversaries,
and
returned to the
religious question
from a
higher
and more
general point
of view. A
pamphlet
entitled
Judaism
and the Christian
Question
marked
the new
tendency
of his
thought.
His
exergue,
taken from
Isaias,
sums
up eloquently
the forbidden
thesis:
"
In that
day
shall Israel be the third to
the
Egyptian
and the
Assyrian:
a
blessing
in
the
midst of the
land,
which the Lord of hosts hath
blessed,
saying:
Blessed be
My people
of
Egypt,
and the work of
My
hands to the
Assyrian
;
but Israel
is
My
inheritance
"
(Isa.
xix.
24, 25).
The first
few
pages
show how
great
an
influence the
Jews
possess
now in
consequence
of their
wealth.
"
Chris-
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
157
tian
society
is
practically governed by
the
Jewish
element;
hence it is
right, especially
in
Russia,
to
study
not
Christianity
and the
Jewish question,
but
Judaism
and the Christian
question.
Was this the introduction to an anti-Semitic
pamphlet
?
Nothing
was more
opposed
to Soloviev s
idea. He
begins by reminding
his readers that in
a
public
lecture,
delivered at the
University
of
Petrograd,
he
spoke
in defence of the downtrodden
Jews,
and adds:
"
Wherever
Christianity
has been
sincere,
war on the
Jews
has been condemned
by
the
faithful,
whose sense of
compassion impelled
them to aim at
instructing
this
unprogressive
people
in the true faith. The
Popes
have tolerated
and
protected
the
Jews."
If
Judaism
is ever to
be
merged
in
Christianity,
the union will be
effected neither
by
material violence nor
by religious
indifference,
but
by
the
display
of the true
principles
of
Christianity
in a Church
resplendent
with virtues.
This
Church,
capable
of
enlightening
the
Jews,
ought
to shed its
brightest rays upon
Russia and
Poland,
since it is in these Slav
countries,
where
Greek Slavs and Latin Slavs
meet,
that the centre
of the
religious activity
of the
Jews
is to be found.
What must the
Jews
think of the Orthodox
Church ? She
persecutes
them for no sufficient
reason,
and
persecutes,
too,
the other Christian
Churches,
thus
setting
a detestable
example,
for
the
greatest
fault of the
Jews,
a fault worse even
than
deicide,
has been their national and
religious
exclusiveness,
that
grew
more intense after Christ s
resurrection. Of course the cross was a
scandal
158
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
to the
Jews,
but their self-love was
particularly
hurt when the
Apostles preached
salvation to the
Gentiles,
and called all nations to be brethren in
religion.
Christians at least
ought
not to
display
to the
Jews
their own disobedience
to the same
commandment
of Christ.
The second
chapter,
as it
appears
in
print,
ends thus
abruptly,
but in the Slav
Library
at Brussels there is
a
copy
with
manuscript
notes
by
Soloviev,
and at
this
point
he wrote:
"
Here the ecclesiastical
censor
cut out about ten
pages.
Soloviev had
given
Chris
tian universalism
"
too Catholic an
interpretation,
and somewhat later the censor
again
intervened.
In
discussing
the
hierarchy
of the
Church,
Solo
viev said:
"
Its close and
profound
unity
is due to
its divine
origin,
and this
unity
is shown
visibly
in the life of the Church
by
the Councils. ..."
In the
printed
text of the
original pamphlet
this
passage
is followed
by
two lines
referring
to the
ecclesiastical
supremacy
and the absolute inde
pendence
of the Councils.
In the
copy belonging
to the Slav
Library,
Soloviev
struck out these
two lines and wrote
in the
margin
:
"
The
censorship
of the Church
here
suppressed
a
passage bearing
on the
importance
of the
Papacy."*
*
It is much to be
regretted
that the editors of Soloviev s
complete
works
have
given
so few annotations.
Critical
remarks on the MSS. of
Soloviev,
on the censor s
alterations,
and the writer s reflections and
protests
would have been
most
interesting,
and
might
have thrown much
light
on the
history
of Soloviev and his line of
thought,
as well as on the
work of the censor.
Perhaps
the
importance
and truth
of such remarks
have led to their
prohibition.
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
159
Soloviev
pointed
out that what he had written
on the
subject
of the
Byzantine Emperors hostility
to the
Pope
was
suppressed,
and
replaced by
an
apocryphal
text. These corrections affected the
third
chapter,
that bears the curious
heading:
Russia, Poland,
and Israel.
Christianity
was
grafted
upon Judaism by
God,
who aims at
organizing
human
society
into a free
theocracy;
but the new
feature in
Christianity
is,
besides theunive
rsality
of the
Church,
the visible manifestation of thean-
drism. The Man-God has
appeared
on
earth,
and
remains the one true
high priest,
the one true
ruler,
the one true saint. Tu solus
Sanctus,
tu solus
Dominus,
tu solus
Altissimus,
as the
liturgy proclaims.
He has three means
whereby
He
continues to abide
with men: the Christian
priesthood,
derived from
Christ and handed on
by
the
Apostles;
the adminis
trative or
ruling
element in Christian
society;
and
the
inspiration
of the
prophets
and holiness of the
saints. We
recognize
here ideas that have
already
been
noticed,
but now Soloviev studies more
pre
cisely
the
origin,
nature,
limitations,
rights,
and
duties of
authority.
The Eastern nations of
antiquity
used to
deify
their
sovereigns,
and bow
down before their un
limited
autocracy.
Ancient Greece
required
her
rulers to be
philosophers, justiciaries,
and
shepherds
of their
people,
but for
purely
human
reasons.
Rome wished her
supreme magistrate,
whatever
title he
bore,
to secure the
supremacy
of
the law.
Christianity groups
all these elements
together
in a
higher synthesis.
i6o VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
A Christian
emperor
forms
part
of the
religious
order of the
world,
being
the chief minister of the
truth and will of
God,
the defender
and
protector
of truth on earth. He is the
supreme
administrator
of
justice,
but
responsible
to
Christ,
of whose
kingly
power
he is the
representative.
Being
anointed
by
God and
reigning by
God s
mercy,
he is inde
pendent
of
popular
caprice. By equity,
therefore,
his
authority
is limited from
above,
not from
below;
though
he is the father and
prince
of his
people,
he
is the son of the Church.
Christ consecrates him,
not,
indeed,
directly,
but
through
the
supreme
pontiff.
This
anointing
does
not bestow
upon
the consecrator
any
direct
rights
over the
State,
but it indicates
the
imperial
mission
in a Christian
society,
and
requires
the
emperor
to be a
loyal
son
of the
Church,
and faithful
in
carrying
out the will
of God.
To this
supreme
Tsar is
delegated only part
of
the divine
or theocratic
power.
If he wishes to
control
religion
or
reject
the admonitions
of
holy
men,
his exclusivism
brings
him back to the
pagan
conception
of
imperialism.
This
tendency
to
Oriental
despotism
proved
the ruin of the
Byzantine
emperors,
plunging
them into
heresy
and schism,
and
making
them
neglect
the
spiritual
welfare
of
their
people.
Although
Christian rulers,
they forgot
their
duty
to the world,
and did not
encourage
missions
that
might
have won
fresh
nations to
Christ.
Their
sin
brought
its own
punishment.
Byzantium,
surrounded
by
non-Christian races,
finally yielded
to their
pressure,
and the
triumph
SOLO VIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
161
of Mahometanism was a
just penalty
inflicted
upon
Eastern
Christianity,
which had been false to its
duty
of
spreading
the faith
among
all mankind.
Soloviev then
proceeds
to a
weighty
criticism of
the Protestant
principle.
Of the three means
whereby
Christ was to continue
among
men,
the Reformers wished to retain
only
the doctrine
of
inspiration. Having
rebelled
against pontifical
authority,
and the
centralization,
with its uni-
versalist
tendency,
of the
Holy
Roman
Empire,
their individual freedom of
speech
was often in
spired by
narrow
nationalism,
and
degenerated.
A Protestant
preacher might,
in the
days
of Luther
and
Zwingli,
claim to be a
prophet,
or,
like Melanch-
thon,
be no more than a
grammarian
or a rabbi.
In our own
day
Strauss is
thoroughly
anti-Christian,
and others inculcate
philosophical
nihilism,
or else
are the docile slaves of the war
party
or of the
plutocracy.
Like the
priesthood,
and like the
sacred character of the
imperial power,
the
very
semblance of faith in divine
inspiration
has vanished
from Protestantism.
Only
three
organised
bodies have
preserved any
trace of the theocratic
government, necessary
for
the salvation of the
world;
these are
Israel, Russia,
and
Romanism,
represented
to the Slavs
by
Poland.
Israel,
though
retarded
by
its
exclusiveness,
remains
nevertheless
capable
of
becoming
a race of saints
and
apostles,
with
great powers
of
organization,
as soon as the narrowness of
Judaism
is broken
down
by
the
spectacle
of
unity amongst
all
Christians.
ii
i6a VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Russia has maintained the
religious conception
of
imperial authority,
and
Poland,
in
spite
of
defeat,
clings
to her
ideal,
and is more faithful to the
universalist or Catholic voice of the mind than to
the Slav voice of flesh and blood. At the
very
border of the East she
upholds
the
memory
of the
great
Western
pontiff,
and we
may
well
suppose
that
her mission is to
bring
East and West
together,
to
set the Eastern Church free and to
strengthen
it
by uniting
it to the
supreme pontiff,
and at the same
time to restore in the West the Christian
dignity
of
the civil
power.
"
Indeed the
greatness
of the Polish nation con
sists
in their
carrying
to the heart of
Slavism,
and
representing
in the face of the
East,
the chief
spiritual principle
of the Western nations."
They
have their
faults,
no
doubt, but,
says
Soloviev,
I am
writing
for
Russians,
and it is not
my
business
to examine the Poles conscience for them. These
representatives
of Christian universalism
would be
traitors to Catholicism if
they
sacrificed their
religious
mission to their national
aspirations.
Have
they
in the
past yielded
to this
temptation
to exclusiveness ? It is not for me to discuss
this
question
here
;
it is
enough
for me to
point
out to the
Russians that the Poles are the
instrument,
supplied
by
Providence,
for
uniting
the East and the West.
How do we know that
they may
not be able to
render
Christianity
the
incomparable
service of
paving
the
way
to reunion between the Eastern
and Western
Churches,
and of
bringing
the
Pope
and the Tsar into
peaceful
alliance ?"
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
163
In
speaking
of
union,
Soloviev
certainly
had no
idea of
sacrificing
the
greatness
of the Russian
Empire,
nor its national
independence,
nor the
authority
of the
Tsar,
nor the
dignity
of the Slav
liturgy,
so often
approved,
blessed,
and
protected
by
the
Popes.
In his
opinion
union with Rome was
primarily
a
duty,
but at the same time he
thought
that it would benefit
Russia,
and ensure the real
liberty
of the Eastern Orthodox
Church,
and its
religious independence.
He
considered that such
a union would
immensely
increase the
importance
of the Slavs in
general,
and of the Russian
Empire
in
particular,
not
only
in
Europe,
but
throughout
the world. It would bestow fresh
prestige upon
the Orthodox and Catholic
Tsar, and,
far from
subordinating
Russia to
Poland,
it would remove
the true cause of their
long-standing
enmity.
The
union of these two nations of
kindred race would be
sanctified,
as soon as
they
both bowed
together
to
receive the
Pope
s
blessing
and to reverence the
Russian Tsar.
CHAPTER IX
SOLOVIEV
S DEVELOPMENT
AS A THEOLOGIAN:
QUESTIONS
PUT TO THE RUSSIAN HIERARCHY
HIS RELATIONS
WITH MGR. STROSSMAYER
"THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THEO
CRACY
"
THE breach between official
Orthodoxy
and Solo-
viev
grew
wider and
wider,
until the situation
became
too strained to last. The ecclesiastical
censorship, always
severe,
showed itself still more
rigorous.
The
manuscript
of a sketch of The
History
and Future
of Theocracy
was
confiscated,
and the most violent attacks
upon
Soloviev were
sanctioned
and
encouraged.
To
these, however,
Soloviev
paid
but little
attention,
for he had no
idea of a
rupture
with the Orthodox
Church,
and
was determined
not to swerve from absolute
loyalty
to her.
Although
threats were
uttered,
his con
science
forbade him to abandon on this account
his honest
inquiries,
and without
any
concealment
he continued
his
quest
of the truth.
Archpriest
Ivantzov-Platonov
had
attempted
to
refute
The Great Debate and Christian
Politics,
and
his
arguments may
be summed
up
under two
headings: (i) History
bears witness to abuses in
164
SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN
165
the life and
government
of the
Popes;
and
(2)
the
primitive
teaching
of the Church
regarding
the
dignity
of the Roman Pontiff has been
tampered
with
by
scholastic
theologians.
Soloviev
replied: Possibly
abuses and
changes
are to be found in what I call
Papism
;
but how does
that affect the
Papacy
? Do these
things justify
our
theologians
in
correcting
what the Greek Fathers
wrote
concerning
the
importance
of the
Papacy
in
the
primitive
Church ? The Seventh
Council,
which
is the last
recognized by
our Church as
oecumenical,
went further than
any
other in
exalting
the
primacy
of the
Pope.
Since that time we
profess
not to have
heard the voice of the universal Church.
How,
then,
can we admit
any depreciation
of the
Papacy
?
People
talk,
it is
true,
of the
heresy
of
Rome,
and
say
that the
Popes
became
schismatics,
when
they
inserted the
Filioque
in the Nicene
Creed,
in
spite
of the
prohibition
of the
Holy
Canons;
and
that,
by
admitting
this
doctrine,
they
became heretics.
Soloviev s keen
insight
took him
straight
to the
heart of the
matter,
and he addressed nine
questions
on
dogma
to the
archpriest
Ivantzov-Platonov,
and
through
him to the whole
hierarchy.
This time
the sound of his voice was heard
beyond
the frontiers
of the
Empire;
the Russian
hierarchy might keep
silence,
but answers came from Paris and Rome.
The
following
account of these
questions
is borrowed
almost
entirely
from the translation of them that
appeared
in the French
press (L
Univers of
June 27,
1887).
First
Question.
When the Canons of the (Ecu-
166 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
menical Councils
require
the Nicene faith to be
kept intact,
do
they
refer to the letter or the
meaning
of the Nicene Creed ?
Second
Question.
Does the word
Filioque,
in
serted into the
primitive
text of the Council of
Nicaea-Constantinople, necessarily
involve
heresy
?
If
so,
which Council has condemned this
heresy
?
Third
Question.
This addition made its
appear
ance in the Churches of the West in the sixth
century
and was known in the East towards the middle of
the seventh
century.
If it contains a
heresy, why
did not the last two (Ecumenical Councils
(the
sixth
in 680 and the seventh in
787)
condemn the
heresy,
and anathematize those who
accepted
it,
instead
of
remaining
in communion with them ?
Fourth
Question.
If it is
impossible
to
say
with
certainty
that the addition of the word
Filioque
constitutes a
heresy,
is not
every
Orthodox Christian
free in this
respect
to follow St. Maximus the
Confessor,
who in his letter to
Marinus,
a
priest,
justifies
the
addition,
and
gives
it an Orthodox
meaning
?
Fifth Question.
Besides the
Filioque,
what other
doctrines of the Roman Church are
heretical,
and
what (Ecumenical Councils have condemned them ?
Sixth
Question.
Is it
possible
that the Church
of Rome should be
pronounced guilty,
not of
heresy,
but of schism ? Now
schism,
as denned
by
the
Fathers,
takes
place
when a
portion
of the
Church
(both clergy
and
laymen)
cuts itself off from
the lawful ecclesiastical
authority
on account of
some
question
of ritual or
discipline.
This
being
SOLOV1EV
AS THEOLOGIAN 167
so,
we
may
ask from what lawful ecclesiastical
authority
the Roman Church
cut herself
off.
Seventh
Question.
If the Church
of Rome
is not
guilty
of
heresy,
and if she cannot
be in a state
of
schism,
because
there is no
superior
authority
from
which she could have
separated,
must
we not
recog
nize this Church as an
integral part
of the
one
Catholic Church
of
Christ,
and
acknowledge
the
separation
between
the Churches
to have
no
truly
religious
and ecclesiastical
justification,
being merely
the work of human
politicians
?
Eighth
Question.
If our
separation
from the
Church
of Rome is based
on no
genuine
principle,
ought
not
we,
Orthodox Christians,
to
lay
more
stress
upon
divine than human
things
? Is it not
our
duty
to labour
for the restoration
of union
between the Eastern
and Western Churches,
and
thus to
promote
the welfare
of the entire
Church
?
Ninth
Question.
If the re-establishment
of inter
communion
between
the East
and West
is for us
a
duty,
have we
any right
to
delay
its
accomplish
ment
by pleading
the
sins and
shortcomings
of
others ?
In his Answer to Danilevski
(1885),
Soloviev
reduced
these
nine
questions
to three.
You
reproach
me,"
he
writes,
"
with
being
too favourable
to Catholicism.
But I write
in
Russia,
where
the
works of
Catholics,
and of those
who do them
justice,
are
generally
suppressed.
I write in Russia
for the
Russians,
and therefore
I
ought
to insist
upon
both
our faults and our duties. For even
though
the
faults of the West may
be more serious
than ours,
1 68
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
yet
it is our own that we are called
upon
to correct.
No matter who is to blame for
it,
the fact remains
that the
separation
of the East and West was and
is a worse
misfortune to the universal
Church,
than
the
origin
and
development
of
Islam,
which
is,
perhaps,
the
chastisement for the
separation.
Therefore
surely
no Christian should fail to seek
an
expiation
for it.
In
asking my
three
questions
I had no other
object
than to
facilitate a
peaceable
settlement.
1.
According
to
my
Orthodox
assailants,
the
supreme
and final
authority
in the
Church,
is the
Church
herself,
the Church that is bound to tell
me herself what the Church
believes,
for
instance,
regarding
the
Filioque.
I ask
therefore how the
Church
by
herself can
ratify
and sanction the
Councils.
2. The
representatives
of
Orthodoxy
are not
agreed
on the
subject
of
Catholics. Some treat
them as
heathen,
and even
rebaptize
them,
whilst
others,
among
whom are our
greatest
theologians,
refuse even to
regard
them as
heretics. I
ask,
therefore,
how am I to know what the Church herself
teaches about Catholics and their Church
3.
As the various
nationalities
belonging
to the
Eastern Church are not
agreed
in their
attitude
towards the
Bulgarian Church,
I ask how am I
to know the
opinion
of the
Church herself
concerning
the
Bulgarians."
Finally,
after
appealing
to the
authority
of
Stoianov,
Vostokov,
and the
great metropolitan
Philaretus the learned
Philaretus who
defined
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
109
Catholicism as
"
a true
Church,
but not
altogether
true "Soloviev concludes that Catholics
ought
to
be criticized and
judged
charitably,
"
otherwise,
how can
they
believe that the essence of our
Church is
charity
?"
Charity
was destined to lead
Soloviev much
further,
and to remove his last
doubts.
These two lists of
questions
aroused such a storm
in
Russia,
that it attracted attention in other
countries,
and made Soloviev s name well known in
the
West. The
questions
were discussed in
Rome
by
Cardinal
Mazzella,
in a lecture
given
at the
open
ing
of the Catholic
Academy.
The Russian trans
lation of this oration was
published by
Herder in
1889.
In Paris Abbe
Tilloy brought
out an octavo
volume of four hundred
pages,
with the title Les
Eglises
Orientates
dissijentes
et I
Eglise
Romaine.
Reponse
aux
neuf questions
de M. Soloviev.
Before
these answers
appeared
in the
West,
Soloviev had
already published
his own
reply
to
his
questions, but,
owing
to the
severity
of the
censorship,
he did not write in
Russian,
nor did his
books
appear
in
Russia. His first statement con
tained in his Letter to
Mgr. J.
G.
Strossmayer
,
Bishop
of
Bosnia and Sirmium was
printed
in
French,
at
Agram,
and
only very
few
copies
of it were issued.
It was dated
September 29,
1886,
and
proposed
to
this Slav
Catholic
Bishop
some considerations
regarding
the reunion of the Churches. This
pamphlet
consisted of
only
fourteen
pages,
but it
did
more than
repudiate
the
"
absurd inventions
inspired by Byzantine
hatred,"
and more than
170
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
express
the author s formal
acceptance
of
"
the sub
lime truth of the Immaculate
Conception."*
It declared that in Orthodox
Russia the mass
of
the faithful shared
"
the Catholic
faith,
apart
from
some doctrinal definitions
made in the West
after
the
separation, especially
on the
subject
of the true
character and attributes of the
supreme power
in
the Church. On these
points
the Orthodox
faithful
were
ignorant."
Soloviev
went on to
say
:
"
As there
never have been
(and,
according
to our best theo
logians,
never can
be) any
(Ecumenical
Councils
in
the
East,
since the
separation
of the Churches
. .
our schism exists for us
only
de
facto,
and
by
no
means de
jure.
What reveals even more
plainly
the uncertain
position
of our Church with reference
to
Catholicism,
is that some
individuals
declare
publicly
that
they
believe
the new
Catholic
dogmas
to be the
legitimate
development
of Orthodox
doctrine,
and so
they
can remain
in
perfect
com-
*
In several
places
Soloviev
points
out that the
opponents
of this
dogma
fail
completely
to understand
it.
The
Immaculate
Conception
is not the
Virgin
Birth;
it does
not
assume
any
miraculous
intervention
in favour
of our
Lady
s
parents; Joiachim
and Anna
brought
their child
into the world in the
ordinary way.
But the child s soul,
in virtue of the merits of
Christ,
foreseen
by
God,
was
preserved
from the stain
resting
on all other descendants
of
Adam,
by
the
outpouring
of
sanctifying
grace.
From its
creation,
the soul of this second
Eve was free
from
spot,
and
pleasing
to
God,
gratia plena.
This is the whole
meaning
of the Immaculate
Conception,
and as Soloviev
said,
the
dogma expresses
the traditional
belief
of both
East and West. The
physiological
considerations
that
led
astray
the scholars of the
Middle
Ages
do not affect
this
truth.
SOLOVIEV AS
THEOLOGIAN
171
munion with the Eastern
Church. I can bear
witness to this fact from
my
own
personal
ex
perience."
In
these words
Soloviev
definitely professed
his
intellectual adhesion to Catholic
doctrine;
he
accepted
even the word
infallible,
but the
feeling
that
made him
employ
the
periphrasis
"
on the
subject
of the true character and attributes of the
supreme
power
in the
Church,"
made him
express
his
homage
to the
authority
of the
Pope,
St. Peter s
successor,
in Latin: Pastor et
magister
infallibilis
Ecdesiae universails.
This
declaration was not made
impetuously
nor
through
any
desire to flatter a Catholic
Bishop.
Even
before the
censorship
forced him to write in
French,
Soloviev had stated the
conclusions,
at
which he had
arrived,
in an
intimate
correspondence
with
General
Alexander
Alexievitch Kireev. The
latter was an
earnest and fearless
advocate of an
anti-Roman
alliance between the Old Catholics and
the Orthodox
Eastern Church. As
early
as 1881
Soloviev had confided to him his first Catholic
aspirations,
and wrote:
"
I
refuse to set the motto
Ad
Maiorem Russiae Gloriam in
place
of Ad Maiorem
Dei
Gloriam" Kireev
thought
that the visible
Church no
longer existed,
but had to be
reconstituted
on fresh
lines,
on a
Slavophile
basis.
Soloviev
replied
:
May
not the visible
Church,
whose
unity
is
indissoluble,
exist
simultaneously among
the
Catholics and
ourselves ? The
separation
may
be
only apparent;
the
underlying
reality
is the
permanent
unity."
In
1883,
three
years
before
172
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
he wrote to
Strossmayer,
Soloviev had made
a
clear and
precise
statement of the results
of his
theological investigation;
in
writing
to Kireev
he
said that he was
convinced,
from his
study
of
history
and
patrology,
that there was no
dogmatic
novelty
and no
heresy
in
Infallibilitas,
Immaculate
Conceptio,
or
Filioque.
In the same letter he remarked
that Protestantism has three
great
defects
;
it has no
apostolic
succession;
it has
tampered
with the
doctrine of the
Incarnation,
and no
longer
teaches
the
perfect
theandrism of
Christ,
God and
man;
and it has lost the
plenitude
of the Sacraments,
and
consequently
Protestants
are outside the
Church.
"
Catholics and members of the Orthodox
Church,
being loyal
on these three
points,
continue
on the
contrary
to share the life of the Church
in
common. Therefore
my
motto will
always
be:
Ceterum censeo instaurandam esse Ecclesiae
unitatem."
In
1884
he wrote
again
to Kireev:
"
The censor
wishes to remove the word
infallibility
from
my
manuscript.
The whole
question
is,
however,
to
determine whether Catholicism is true or
false,
and
whether Leo XIII. is one with Leo the Great or not."
Therefore it is
plain
that the letter to
Strossmayer,
printed
in
September,
1886,
was the outcome
of
long,
conscientious work. Soloviev
hesitated
for
a considerable
time before
writing
it. He felt
no doubt as to the correctness
of his
opinions,
but
he was not sure whether his conscience
required
him to reveal them
publicly,
or whether such a
revelation
would be
opportune.
The
history
of this mental
struggle
is worth
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
173
recording.
For a
long
time Soloviev had admired
Mgr. Strossmayer, though
he did not know him
personally.
He saw in him a veteran of the Catholic
episcopate,
and an ardent
champion
of the Slavs.
In order to draw them to Rome and obtain for them
the benefits that Rome can
confer,
the
bishop
worked with an ardour that was
occasionally
excessive,
but
always loyal.
At the close of 1886 Soloviev resolved to
put
him
self into communication with
him,
and wrote him
a
private
letter,
headed:
"
Moscow;
the Feast of
the Immaculate
Conception
of the Blessed
Virgin,
1885."
To one
acquainted
with the
prejudices
of
the Orthodox
party,
this
simple heading
was
equivalent
to a
profession
of faith. The rest of
the letter was written with
great
reserve. The
writer
begged
the
bishop
to
give
him an interview
in
Croatia,
either at
Agram
or at
Djakovo.
He
indicated his reason for
making
this
request by
saying:
"
My
heart
rejoices
at
having
such a
guide
as
yourself."
At the same time a
very persistent
rumour was
current in some of the Moscow
papers,
that Soloviev
was
contributing
attacks
upon
Russia to
foreign
periodicals.
In order to
put
an end to these
insinuations,
on
November 28
(December 10), 1885,
he wrote from
Moscow a letter that
appeared
two
days
later in
the Novote Vremia
(No. 3,864),
in which he
says:
"
I have
just
finished the
first
article that I have
ever written in a
foreign language
for readers out
side Russia. It has
appeared
in the Croatian
174
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
journal
Katolicki
List,
under the title:
Eglise
Oriental
ou
Eglise
Orthodoxe ? In this article I have
spoken
of Russia with
patriotic
affection." Nevertheless,
the
imperial police, having
found out that Soloviev
was
thinking
of
going
abroad,
watched him
closely,
regarding
him as a
"
suspect,"
who
ought
not to
escape
their
vigilance.
For six months all move
ment was
impossible,
and it was not until
June 29,
1886,
"
the Feast of St. Peter and St.
Paul,"
that
Soloviev was able to write a second letter to
Mgr.
Strossmayer
and
say:
"
I have at last been able to
reach
Austria,
and am now free to see
you."
The
bishop kept
Soloviev as his
guest
for a
couple
of
months,
and their mutual
understanding
and
confidence
surpassed
all their
expectations.
The
French
publication,
that we have
already
discussed,
was the outcome of their conversations.
In
September
Soloviev s first visit to
Djakovo
had
ended,
and on the
9/21
of this month he wrote
from
Agram
a letter full of affection and
grati
tude addressed to
Bishop Strossmayer.
With
easy
familiarity
he
reproached
the old man with
taking
too little care of his
health;
assured him that he
dreamt of him
every night
and
longed
to meet that
"
worthy
follower of Krizanic
"
again
at
Djakovo
and even at
Petrograd
and Moscow.
Finally,
he
asked the
bishop
for his
blessing
"
with devotion
and veneration." With this letter he sent
"
the
little memorial
"
which the two Christians had dis
cussed at
great length, being
anxious to
develop
Slavophilism
into Catholicism. The memorial was
to be
printed,
but
only
a
very
few
copies
were to
SOLOVIEV AS
THEOLOGIAN
175
be issued for
private
circulation. It was
very
care
fully
edited,
and
appeared
in a
pretty
white
binding.
According
to the notes made
by Strossmayer
s
private
secretary,
Milko
Tzeppelitch,
there were
only
ten
copies
of
it;
three were sent to
Rome,
one
to Leo
XIIL,
another to Cardinal
Rampolla,
the
Secretary
of
State,
and a third to
Mgr. (afterwards
Cardinal)
Vannutelli,
Papal
Nuncio at
Vienna.
Three other
copies
were
placed
at
Strossmayer
s
disposal
and four were sent to
Soloviev. Of
these
last,
he
presented
one to the Slav
Library
in
Brussels.
It will be
reproduced
in
full,
among
Soloviev s
French works.*
This
pamphlet,
marking
a new and definite
direction in
Soloviev s line of
thought,
was unknown
in
Russia,
where no
notice was taken of his first
visit to
Strossmayer
and his friend Canon
Racki,
President of the Croatian
Academy.
The censor
even
sanctioned the
publication,
in the
Novote
Vremia,
of some
verses,
written
by
Soloviev,
that
appeared
under the
pseudonym
of Prince
Heliotrope.
Soloviev,
though
convinced
intellectually,
was still
uncertain as to the
practical
obligations
resting
on him. At the
beginning
of
August,
1886,
he told
his mother that he
should
perhaps
receive
Holy
Communion on the Feast of the
Assumption,
in
the Orthodox
Church, served in
Croatia
by
Serbian
clergy.
*
The
pamphlet
was
reprinted
by
Radlov in his
collection
of Soloviev s
letters,
but he
probably
used a
rough
draft
or an inaccurate
copy.
We have
noticed some fifteen
inaccuracies,
occasionally
of
considerable
importance,
some
affecting
the
phraseology
and
others the
subject
matter.
176
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
M. Charles Loiseau in the
Correspondant
of
April
25, 1905,
recalls an anecdote
that is character
istic of Soloviev s state of mind
in 1886.
The
intercourse between these two men
(Strossmayer
and
Soloviev),
neither of whom had
any
reason
to
envy
the
learning
and influence of the
other,
had some
thing
so
noble, fraternal,
and
touching
about
it,
that
those who witnessed it can never
forget
it. At
Djakovo
Soloviev had one of those
symbolical
adventures that occurred
at intervals
all
through
his life.
Being
in the habit of
walking
about
at
night,
he was
pacing
the
long paved
corridor
that
all who have been
guests
at
Djakovo
must
know
well. At least a dozen rooms
open
upon
it,
and
when
Soloviev had
sufficiently
thought
out
his meta
physical problem
he was at a loss to know
which
was his own room. He was one of those
simple-
hearted men who confess
and ask
pardon
for their
absent-mindedness,
and do not boast
of it. He
cautiously
tried first one
door,
then another,
but
the third was
locked,
and he felt that
his tentative
method lacked discretion,
so he determined
to
continue to
pace
the corridor.
Towards
morning
he noticed that a
door,
which he had
passed
perhaps
a hundred
times,
was
ajar,
and certain
signs
con
vinced him that at last he had found
the
right
room. At breakfast the
conversation
turned
on
his
adventure,
and when
Strossmayer
gently
rallied
him about
it,
he
replied
in a
deep, quiet
voice
:
When we are in search of the
truth,
or uncertain
regarding
which moral resolution
we
ought
to
form,
it often
happens
that we hesitate
before
a
door,
SOLOVIEV
AS THEOLOGIAN
i?7
that looks as if it were locked,
but needs
only
to
be
pushed.
How
many
more times was the
door
to seem
locked to Soloviev ? What
answer
could
he
give
to the difficult case of conscience
that
was
troubling
him ? In the
profound
loyalty
of his
soul,
he
believed that Providence
had
imposed
upon
him
the task of
effecting,
no matter
at what
cost to
himself,
a
rapprochement
between
Russia
and the
Catholic Church.
Henceforth
the aim of his life
was to show
by
his
example
that a
Slav,
without
ceasing
to be a
Slav,
could
and should
expand
his heart and mind to embrace
Catholicity
in faith
and endeavour,
and
prove
at the same time that
Roman Catholicism
completes,
crowns,
and unifies
all that is
legitimate
in the traditional
Orthodoxy
of the East.
He resolved to state
his views
in a
large
Russian
work,
a sort of discourse
upon
universal
history,
in
which the course
of
religion
in the
past
would
display
to his
contemporaries
the universalist
or Catholic
design,
which Providence
has laid before
them
with
reference
to the future.
This work on The
History
and Future
of
Theocracy
was to be in three volumes;
history, philosophy,
and revelation
were to be
shown
to
converge,
more and more
in the course
of centuries,
regarding
the chief
individual
and
collective
duties
of mankind.
Let us examine
briefly
this
ambitious
design.
God,
the Father
of the human race,
desires
it to be restored
in Christ
its
Head;
and this Head of the Church
wishes all
men to be united
with Him
through
the Church.
I :
J?8 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
His aim is to
bring
them all
together
into one flock
under
one
Shepherd;
and to
perfect
them in a
unity
resembling
the divine
unity
of the
Trinity.
With
this
divine
unity
in
view,
the
spirit
of Christ strives
to
manifest even now the
charity
and
harmony
of
His
members,
in
spite
of the
diversity
of their
works.
This visible
unity
is
recommended
constantly
by
St.
Paul,
who
teaches at the same time
that,
if
it is to
exist and
increase,
even in a local
Church,
there
must be a
hierarchy,
which,
being
instituted
by
God and
representing
Him,
subordinates our
free will to
other
wills,
that
communicate to us
God s
commands.
How, then,
in a
Church,
that
has
spread
all over the
world,
can
harmony
exist
and be the
incontestable mark of divine
protection,
unless
there is a
bond of union
visibly connecting
the
religious
efforts of
believers in
Jesus
Christ ?
This
bond of
union,
the
sign
and
symbol
of universal
charity,
and
consequently
also of
liberty,
has never
existed,
and can never
exist,
except
in
agreement
with the
successor of
St. Peter. Thus the divini-
zation of the human
race
by
a
voluntary acceptance
of a Catholic
theocracy
has
been,
from the
beginning
of the
world,
God s
design.
The
history
of the
resistance offered
by
man,
and the new devices to
which God in His
mercy
has
recourse,
forms the
great
drama
being
enacted in this
world,
the
apo
theosis of which will be in
eternity.
The
great
acts in this
drama have been the choice of the
Israelites and their
instruction
by
the
prophets,
the
Incarnation of the Word in the womb of an
Immacu-
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
i?9
late
Virgin,
and the aid of the
Holy Spirit
bestowed
upon
the Church to render her
really
universal,
by reuniting
all mankind.
This aid of the
Holy
Ghost has a
history,
and a
new
phase
of it is in course of
preparation
viz.,
the visible union of all whose
loyal
faith in the
Church of Christ binds them to the soul of that
Church.
By
means of this visible
union,
the
body
of
the Church will be revealed
in all its
beauty,
strength,
and
vigorous growth, having
as its
supreme
eternal
Head none other than
Jesus
Christ,
but with a
hierarchy subject
to the
authority
of each successive
Pontiff who
represents
the
unifying spiritual power
of Christ.
A free
theocracy
would
not, therefore,
consist
in the universal subordination of all nations to the
material
kingship
of the
popes. Jesus
Christ alone
would
reign supreme
over all the
religious,
social,
and material
activity
of this
world,
and the human
representatives
of this Divine
authority
would
hold it
only
with limitations of time and
space.
The
popes
exercise this
authority
in
spiritual
matters,
and
temporal
rulers in the domain of
economics and
politics.
Both,
being
mortal,
will
have to render a strict account of their
actions,
and
the
thought
of their
responsibility explains
God s
patience
with His
stewards,
even when
guilty
and
scandalous in their lives. Scandals have existed in
the case of
popes
and
kings,
and human
passions
and selfish ambition have more than once
corrupted
those who
ought
to be saints of
God,
and disinterested
servants of His
earthly kingdom.
Their most serious
i8o VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
offence is the
attempt
to
grasp
all the
powers
that
belong
to
Jesus
Christ alone. If an
emperor
wishes
to
govern
the
spiritual
order,
or a
pope
to
manage
the
temporal
affairs of all the nations on
earth,
both are
wrong;
and this fault is committed
by
all
who
reject
the union between Church and State.
These two
powers,
each
being
a
specialist
in its
own
domain,
affect the same
persons
and the same
social
forces;
they
cannot
ignore
one
another,
but
should,
on the
contrary,
be of mutual assistance.
Their ultimate aims are identical. Both are God s
delegates,
and it is their task to
organize
mankind
and lead them to
God,
so that the
divinization,
that
He
designs, may
be effected.
There must then be an
understanding
between
Church and
State,
but it must be in accordance with
the interests at stake. The
spirit
is
higher
than
matter,
and so
purely spiritual
and
religious
interests
must take
precedence
of economic
prosperity
and
material
development.
The
popes
are commis
sioned to
enlighten
and direct the conscience of
princes,
to recall them to their duties as men and
responsible
rulers,
to rebuke their
wrongdoing,
if
of a nature to
give
scandal,
and even to
pronounce
a solemn anathema
against
them. Hence the
pope
indirectly
controls civil
rulers,
but this is not an
encroachment
upon
their
supremacy
in the
State,
but a
necessary
result of the
pope
s
spiritual power.
The exercise of this
power requires supernatural
faith and
courage;
we cannot
help admiring
these
virtues in the
great popes,
and
regretting
their
absence
in
others, who,
being
weaker,
shrank from
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
181
condemning,
in Christ s
name,
men of
guilty
conscience.
The
carrying
out of this
design
afforded Soloviev
abundant
opportunities
of
studying
the historical
grievances,
that the Russians cherish
against
the
Papacy.
Some of them are the results of mistakes
or
false
statements,
others are based on facts.
But men s faults do not overthrow God s work
;
the
flight
of the
Apostles
in the Garden of Olives did
not cause their
apostolic
mission to be withdrawn.
The Catholic Church never teaches that the man
who is
pope
is
impeccable,
she
only
knows that God
will
secure the
accomplishment
of his social
mission,
and the
infallibility
of the Universal Teacher is
guaranteed
by
Providence. The ultimate aim of
this
special protection
is the divinization of the
human
race,
that is called
by
Christ to a life of
grace
and free
unity
in
charity.
Soloviev
completed
only
one volume of this
great
work on The
History
and Future
of Theocracy.
He tried in the first instance to
publish
it in
Russia,
even before his visit to
Strossmayer,
but the censor
absolutely
refused to sanction its
being printed.
A few
extracts from it
appeared
in the Moscow
Academy
Review,
and
eighty-five pages
of it were
published
between
September
8 and November
21,
1885 (La
rupture
dogmatique
dans I
Eglise
et scs
relations avec la
question
de I union des
Eglises).
This
was, however,
an
insignificant part
of a volume
containing
more than three hundred
pages
in the
complete
edition of Soloviev s works.
The extracts
1 82 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
conclude with a
note,
in which the editor
of the
Review states that he differs from Soloviev on the
Filioque question.
Greatly against
his
will,
Soloviev
had to
publish
this first volume of The
History
and Future
of
Theocracy
at
Agram.
On
May
20,
1887,
he informed
Nicolas Nicolaievitch Strakhov
that he had seen
it
through
the
press;
it was
badly printed,
as was
natural,
since the
printers
knew no
Russian,
and it
had
given
the author a
great
deal of trouble.
He
hoped
that the influence of the book would be worth
all the trouble and
expense
that it had cost him.
Of his own accord he had
suppressed
those
passages
which would have most offended the
censor,
and
amongst
them was a
long
discussion
of the
primacy
of St. Peter. He trusted that the book
in this
modified form
might
be allowed to circulate
in
Russia,
but he was
disappointed;
the censor abso
lutely
forbade the book to be
brought
into the
country,
and this
prohibition,
which was not
removed until after Soloviev s
death,
caused
him to
desist from his
undertaking.
In a letter dated October
12, 1886, Strossmayer
informed
Mgr.
Vannutelli,
the
Papal
Nuncio at
Vienna,
that the work would soon be finished:
Opus
trium voluminum de unitate Ecclesice
;
and in
December,
1887,
Soloviev told Strakhov
that he
was
engaged upon
the second
volume.
A few
months later he wrote that it was
finished,
and that
he intended to cross the frontier
in order to
supervise
the
printing.
However,
on November
12/24,
1888,
he
wrote from
Agram
to
say
that he had been
obliged
to
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
183
abandon his
design.
"
I see no
general advantage,"
he
remarked,
"
in
publishing
Russian books that
will
undoubtedly
be
prohibited
in Russia. I have
not the least
hope
that the censor will moderate
his
severity
towards me for a
long
time to come."
These confidential statements show that a
great
deal of interest attaches to Soloviev s
unpublished
manuscripts.
Their
publication
would throw much
light
on the
history
of his
thought,
but,
as it
is,
we can
only
trace a few
stages
in
it,
being guided
by
the landmarks that he himself has fixed. Out
ward
signs
of this
kind,
designed
for
the
guidance
of
others,
do not
always
reveal the full
depths
of
a man s
personal
convictions,
and more information
can often be
gathered
from notes and
rough sketches,
in which remarks occur that
prudence
would forbid
him to
publish,
but that would reveal to us the hidden
secrets of his soul.
Soloviev s first visit to
Djakovo
coincides with his
adoption
of a definite direction in his
thought
and
life. We shall see that
during
his
journey
to Paris
he
expressed
his views more
decidedly, wording
them, however,
so
discreetly
as to
escape
the censor s
prohibition.
His conclusions had been
prepared
in
Russia,
were formed
finally
in
Strossmayer
s
company
with all the
sincerity
of ardent faith and
charity,
and were
openly proclaimed
in
Paris;
they
never
changed again.
The faith of his last twelve
years
was the
subject
of
a French book that will
always
be considered the chief
work of this
great
thinker,
champion,
and
apostle
of divine truth
viz.,
La Russie et I
Eglise
universellc.
CHAPTER X
THE CONCLUSIONS OF SOLOVIEV THE THEO
LOGIAN : "THE RUSSIAN IDEAL
" "
LA
RUSSIE ET L EGLISE UNIVERSELLE
"
TOWARD the end of
1886,
M. Anatole
Leroy-Beaulieu,
wishing
to obtain
"
authentic information
regarding
Soloviev s
religious system,"
wrote to Father
Pierling
on the
subject.
The latter forwarded
the
request
to
Mgr. Strossmayer,
who wrote in
reply
a letter dated
January
23, 1887.
It has
hitherto not been
published,
and we
reproduce
it
in
full,
without
altering
the
spelling.
REVERAND PERE
ET MON CHER FRERE EN
I.X.,
Voila la lettre ecrite a moi
par
notre excellent
Souvalof
(Soloviev).
II
publira
successiment
3
volumes,
a
Agram,
sur la reunion des
e*glises.
L
im.
pression
du
premier
volume est
presque
termine-
II a 1 intention d en
publier
un
abrege
en francais.
C est un home ascete et vraiment saint. Son idee
mere est
qu
il n
y
a
pas
un vrai schisme en
Russie,
mais seulement un
grand
malentendue. A
present
il demeure a Moscou.
Je
lui e*crirai
instantanement,
qu
il vous
expose
un
peu plus
au fond sa doctrine.
Je
c6nais un
peu
rexcellent ecrivain Leroie-Beaulieu .
Je
leus ses articles dans la revue des deux mondes-
184
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
185
Saluez le de ma
part.
II est ami des Slaves. II a
mille foi raison. II faut
que
la
ra$e
latine,
a la
tete la france s unisse a la
rage
slave,
pour
se de-
fendre centre la race altiere et
egoiste, qui
nous
tous
menace de son
joug.
Adieu mon che"re frere.
Je
me recdmande a votre charite* et a vos
prieres.
Votre frere en
I.X.,
STROSSMAYER,
DIAKOVO,
23/1, 1887.
eveque.
1
*
A few
days
later Father
Pierling
received a
letter from
Soloviev,
who wrote on
January 31, 1887.
The
following
are the most
important passages
in
it:
"
Bishop Strossmayer
has forwarded me the
*
Translation. Reverend Father and dear Brother in
Christ. Here is the letter written me
by
our
good
friend
Soloviev. He intends to
publish
three successive volumes
at
Agram, regarding
the reunion of the Churches. The
printing
of the first volume is almost finished. He means
to
publish
an
abridgment
of it in French. He is a mortified
and
really holy
man. The idea with which he starts is that
there is no actual schism in
Russia,
but
only
a
great
deal
of
misunderstanding. Just
now he is
living
in Moscow.
I will write to him at once and ask him to
expound
his
views to
you
rather more
thoroughly.
I have a
slight
acquaintance
with that excellent writer
Leroy-Beaulieu,
and have read his articles in the Revue des deux Mondes-
Give him
my
kind
regards.
He is a friend to the
Slavs,
and with
good
reason. The Latin
races,
with France at
their
head,
must unite with the
Slavs,
to defend themselves
against
the
overbearing
and selfish race that threatens
to
subjugate
us all.
Farewell,
dear brother. I commend
myself
to
your charity
and
prayers.
Your brother in Christ
,
STROSSMAYER,
Bishop.
DIAKOVO.
January 23,
1887.
1 86 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
letter in which
you expressed
to him M.
Leroy-
Beaulieu s wish. This
request
for authentic
in
formation
concerning my religious system
affords
me
my
first
opportunity
of
laying my
ideas before
a
really enlightened public.
I am
very glad
of
it,
the more so because the
persistent persecution
of
the
censorship
makes it almost
impossible
for me to
address a
public
that
is,
strictly speaking,
Russian.
The work that
you
and M.
Leroy-Beaulieu
wish me
to undertake
agrees perfectly
with one of
my
own
schemes.
"
I will
myself
write in
French,
as well as I
can,
a short but
complete
statement of
my
ideas on
religion
and the Church.
I consider
these two
points
to be of
supreme
and fundamental
importance
in
the matter of reunion.
I shall
probably
add to
this statement
a
philosophical justification
of the
three doctrines of the Catholic Church that form
the chief doctrinal
obstacle to union between
her
and the Eastern
Church
viz.,
the
procession
of
the
Holy
Ghost et a Filio
(sic),
the
dogma
of the
Immaculate
Conception
of the Blessed
Virgin,
and
lastly infallibilitas
Summi
Pontificis
ex cathedra
(sic).
All this
will,
when
printed,
cover
eight
or
ten
pages,
and will form an article that I shall be
happy
to write under the title of
Philosophy of
the
Universal
Church.
"
M.
Leroy-Beaulieu
can make use of this
article,
either
in
manuscript
or in
print,
when he
brings
out his third volume. I
earnestly beg you
to write
to me on this
subject."
The
suggested
title was
altered,
and the article
became a volume
containing
four hundred
pages.
M.
Leroy-Beaulieu
did far more than utilize
it for
his own
great
work,
and it was at his house
in
Viroflay
that Soloviev
finally completed
the task
that he had undertaken.
This French work
occupied
him for more than
two
years;
on
January 30, 1887,
he told Strakhov
what M.
Leroy-Beaulieu
had
done,
and communi
cated to him as a
great
secret the
plan
of his article.
On
May
20 he still
spoke,
in a letter to the same
correspondent,
of a work on the
Philosophy of
the
Universal Church. On December
6,
in the same
year,
he relates a
very
characteristic
incident that
he had witnessed:
"
I told
you,
I
think,"
he
says,
"
that a
picture representing
Christ in the act of
giving
the
keys
to the
Apostle
Peter has been re
moved from our Russian exhibition
of
Raphael
s
works." He
goes
on in the same letter to mention
the title now
definitely
chosen for his French
work;
it was La Russie et I
Eglise
Universelle.
"
In this
book I shall be able to
express
all
my
ideas
freely
and
fully."
Finally,
on November
12/24,
l888
>
he
wrote from
Agram
to inform his friend that the book
was
being printed
in Paris.
Meantime
various
events had occurred
which we must notice
briefly.
For some
years
Soloviev
had been
acquainted
with Princess Elizabeth
Volkonsky,
a woman
of
rare virtue and
deep piety.*
She was born in
1838
*
The details
given
concerning
Princess
Elizabeth
Volkonsky
are derived from an
unpublished
private
docu
ment in the Slav
Library. Quotations
from it are
printed
within inverted commas.
i88 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
and
belonged
to an aristocratic Orthodox
family.
Her
early years
were
passed
in
Rome,
where she was
remarkable for her
religious
fervour,
and when she
married Prince Michael
Volkonsky,
she
hoped
to
gather
round her a
family equally
devoted to the
Orthodox Church.
"
She
always
believed in the Universal
Church,
considering
it to be the Church of the
East,
but she
felt no
hostility
towards the Catholic
Church,
with
which she had been familiar in her childhood."
Gradually,
however,
an uneasiness on the
subject
of
religion
disturbed her
peace
of mind. Her
character was too virile and her will too conscientious
for her to be influenced
by
mere
impressions
. . .
study,
historical
research,
and
reading
the Fathers
of the Church led her in course of time to see the
truth." She was fifteen
years
older than
Soloviev,
and had been struck
by
his first
essays.
"
Her
friendship
with Soloviev dated from
1880;
she understood him as soon as he came before the
public;
she was his
support
when his enemies
as
sailed
him,
and she did her best to obtain for him
liberty
of
speech.
She
put
in circulation dozens of
copies
of his first volume on
Theocracy,
and collected
money
towards the
expense
of
bringing
out the
second volume. Soloviev did not
accept
the
money,
and insisted
upon
her
returning
each
contribution
to the
giver."
This sacred
friendship
was
strengthened by
an
interchange
of valuable
services.
Soloviev lavished his
learning
and zeal
upon
the task of
enlightening
her
calm,
straight
forward
mind,
and his
personal
conviction,
the read-
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
189
ing
that he
recommended,
and the work that ahe
carried on under his
direction,
led at last to a
practical
result.
"
In 1886 she visited Rome and
received the
blessing
of Leo XIII.
,
who
introduced her to others
who were also devoted to the task of
reunion,
and
thenceforth she lived for this end
alone,
although
she did not
yet
become a
Catholic,
for she
thought
that she could do better work
by remaining
where
she
was,
than would be
possible
were she to attract
attention
by
her
reception
into the Catholic
Church,
and
consequently
she deferred the moment so
ardently
desired." Soloviev
induced her to
post
pone
her
entrance into the Church. Before his
visit to
Mgr.
Strossmayer,
he
passed
through
Vienna on
June 29,
1886,
and called
upon
Father
Tondini and Princess
Volkonsky.
For the second
time he
achieved the success that he mentioned in
a letter to the
Novoie
Vremia,
dated November 28
(December
10), 1885.
"
I
think,"
he
said,
"
that
conversion or outward union is
useless,
and
even
harmful. I have deterred several
people
from
it,
for our Church
ought
to be
recognized
as
professing
a
correct faith."
The
princess yielded
to his
persuasion,
and
spent
some months in
propagating prayer
for
reunion
among
the
country priests
of the Orthodox
Church,
especially
in
Carniola.
"
Her ardent desire was to
succeed in
instituting
Masses for reunion in
the
Orthodox
Church." To facilitate this
design,
she
interested herself in the unification of the
calendars,
and in all the
pontifical
decisions that allowed Slav
1
90
VLADIMIR
SOLO VIE V
Catholics to use a
liturgy
in
harmony
with
their
traditions
and
temperament.
Nevertheless
she did
not lose
sight
of the
funda
mental
problem,
and continued
to ask herself
what
her
personal
obligations
were.
She was accustomed
to
literary
work, having compiled
a
genealogy
of
the
Volkonsky
family,
which
was
regarded
as a
model
by
the
Imperial
Genealogical
Society.
Now
she
began
to
arrange
the notes
on the Church
that
she had made when
reading
the Fathers,
and,
as
soon as her Russian
manuscript
was
completed,
further
delay
seemed
to her no less
wrong
than
doubt,
and she was received
into the
Church
in
November,
1887.
Her conversion
was a shock to Soloviev,
but
he
did not
reproach
her. If his own conscience
bade
him follow
another
path,
it did
not,
in his
opinion,
require
him to
judge
others.
In 1888 Princess
Volkonsky
brought
out her
first
theological
work
The Church.
Soloviev
had
given
her much
encouragement
regarding
its
publi
cation.
In
September,
1889, appeared
a refutation
of it
by
M. Bielaiev,
professor
at the Ecclesiastical
Academy
of
Kazan,
who
had sent the
proofs
of
his work
to Pobedonostsev,
that
they
might
be
submitted
to
experts
for revision.
In October
Princess
Volkonsky
began
her
reply,
and worked
at it for
years.
It was
published
after
her death,
in
Russian,
by
Herder
at
Freiburg
in
Breisgau,
and bears
the title
The Ecclesiastical
Tradition
and
Theological
Literature
of
Russia.
The
author
s name
is not
given.
As her books
could
SOLOVIEV
AS
THEOLOGIAN
191
not
appear
in
Russia,
she
was
forced to
work
secretly
and
often
wrote at
night
after
returning
from a
ball or
after
long
journeys.
Sometimes for
weeks or
even
months
she
wrote
nothing
at all.
t is
easy
to
understand
that
great
mental
weariness
was
caused
by
work so
frequently
interrupted,
and
by
the
moral
suffering
of
being
compelled
to
keep
silence
about
the
truth, whilst
she was
treated
by
her
enemies as a liar
and
forger.
She
died
in
February,
1897.
These
extracts
from a
private document
are
enough
to
account for
Soloviev s
feelings
during
his
journey
to
Paris in
1888.
He
went
thither
to
superintend the
printing
of
his
French
book La
Russie et I
Eglise Universelle.
When
he
consulted
the
princess
with
regard
to
it,
she
begged
him to
suppress
all
bitter
attacks
upon
his
country
and
he
complied,
but
nevertheless,
in
spite
of
her
remonstrances,
he
brought
out a
sort of
resume
the
book,
in
pamphlet form,
containing
the
passages
omitted
from
his
larger
work
They
are
excessively
bitter
and
contain a
reference to
the
cele
brated
paper
on
The
Russian
Idea
that
Soloviev
read on
May 25, 1888,
at
Pans,
in
the
salon
Princess
Sayn-Wittgenstein,
nee
Bariatynski
Ihere
was a
large
audience,
including
the
elite of
the
faubourg
Saint-Germain, some
members of
the
Academy
and
several
priests
and
journalists
M.
bugene Tavernier
says
that
about
sixty people
were
present, most of
them
belonging
to
the
society
the
faubourg
Saint
-
Germain, besides
a
few
Russians,
to
whom
Paris
was a
second
home
some
192
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
foreign religious
and three or four
persons
connected
with the
press.
Soloviev
was introduced
by
Father
Pierling,
and
spoke
in French so
pure
that
his
eloquence
and assurance
astonished
M. Tavernier,
who
says
that the
paper,
though
short,
gave
everyone
an
impression
of
power.
Soloviev s
thoughts,
how
ever,
were so far
beyond
the horizon even
of the
elite
among
his
hearers,
that he felt himself
mis
understood or
only
half understood
by
many.
The
Russian alliance had not
yet
brought
French
and
Russians into
sympathy.
Vladimir Guettee
misrepresented
the Russian
opinion
of this
lecture,
when he
published
immedi
ately
afterwards a
very
much
biased
reply
to The
Russian Idea. His
pamphlet,
La Russie et son
Eglise,
ends with a
phrase
intentionally
insulting
and
very
characteristic
of the writer:
"Soloviev
is more
papistical
than Bellarmine,
or the
pope
himself." The lecture
on The Russian
Idea con
tained
nothing startling.
No doubt
Soloviev
looked
forward to the
incorporation
of his
dearly
loved
Russia with the Catholic Church;
no doubt he
in
sisted
upon
the
duty
of
religious
universalism ;
but
these statements
were
not
new;
he had
repeated
them in all his later works.
Whether the reader
be interested
chiefly
in
psy
chology
or in
religion,
he will be more
inclined to
appreciate
whatever
marks
progress
towards
a
personal,
definite
solution
of the ecclesiastical
problem.
From
this
point
of
view the French
lecture
contained
nothing
that a dutiful
son
of
Russia
could
not
say
to his mother, nothing
that
SOLOVIE V AS
THEOLOGIAN
193
did not
betray
his ambition for her. It
only
raised
the
question
of Russia s raison d
etre in
universal
history.
"
One sees this vast
empire
take its
place,
more
or less
brilliantly, upon
the world s
stage,
and
accept
Western civilization on
many points
of
secondary importance,
whilst
obstinately rejecting
it in
more
important
matters,
thus
preserving
an
originality,
which is no less
striking
because it is
purely negative.
When we see this
great
historical
fact,
we are
impelled
to ask: What
thought
does it
hide from or reveal to us ? What is the ideal
principle animating
this
mighty body
? What new
message
has this new nation to
convey
to mankind ?
What
part
will it
play
in the
history
of the world ?
For the answers to these
questions,
we must not
go
to
public opinion
at the
present day,
for then we
might
have to
change
our minds
to-morrow,
but
we must seek them in the eternal truths of
religion,
since the ideal
of
a nation is not what it thinks
of itself
in
time,
but what God thinks
of
it in
eternity."
We shall
quote
at some
length
Soloviev s
develop
ment of this
theme,
because the
original
text is
generally
unknown in Russia.
r
In
speaking
of the real and essential
unity
of
the human
race,
we
ought
to think of mankind as
a
great
collective
entity,
or as a social
organism
of which the various nations are the
living
members.
It is evident from this
point
of view that no nation
can live
in, for,
and
by
itself,
but that the life of
each is a
definite
participation
in the
general
life
of
humanity.
The
organic
function that
each
13
I
94
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
nation has to
discharge
in this universal life is its
true national
ideal,
determined from the
beginning
by
God s
design.
"
But if it is true that the human race is one
great
organic
whole,
we must remember that it is not
a
purely physical
organism,
but that the members
and elements
of which it is
composed
nations and
individuals
are moral
beings.
Now the essential
condition
of a moral
being
in this: the
particular
function that it is
required
to
discharge
in the
universal
life,
the idea that determines its existence
in the mind of
God,
is never
imposed
as a material
necessity,
but
only
as a moral
obligation.
"
The vocation or
special
ideal
assigned by
God
to each moral
being,
whether an individual
or a
nation,
and which is revealed to the conscience
of this
being
as his
supreme duty,
has in
every
case
a real
power,
and determines
the existence of a
moral
being,
but it does this in two different
ways.
It is the law of
life,
when the
duty
is
discharged,
and the law of
death,
when it is
neglected.
No
moral
being
can ever withdraw from the divine
design,
that is his raison d
etre,
but it rests with
himself
to bear it in his heart and
life,
as a
blessing
or as a curse."
In
support
of this statement Soloviev referred as
usual to the
people
of Israel.
"
The nation called to
give
Christianity
to the
world
accomplished
its task in
spite
of
itself,
and for
eighteen
centuries
the
great majority
of its members
have
persisted
in
rejecting
the divine
ideal that was
carried in its heart and formed its true raison
d &tre.
SOLOVIEV AS
THEOLOGIAN
195
It
is, therefore,
no
longer permissible
to
assert
that a nation s
public opinion
is
always correct,
and that no nation can ever fail to
recognize
or
reject
its true vocation."
The
application
of this
theory
to
Russia was
thrilling,
beginning
as it did with an
outburst of
poetical enthusiasm,
and
ending
with filial
sorrow.
Truly
I think of the
rays,
presaging
a
grand
future,
that
lighted up
our
history
at the
outset
;
I
recall,
after the
original
foundation of
material
order,
the no less
remarkable
introduction
of
Christianity,
and the
glorious
figure
of St.
Vladimir,
the ardent and fanatical
servant of
idols,
who,
perceiving
the
unsatisfying
character of
paganism,
and
feeling
a need of true
religion,
reflected
and
deliberated for a
long
time before
embracing
it,
but,
when he had
become a
Christian, resolved to
be one in
earnest.
Popular
poetry
calls our
first
Christian ruler the
beautiful sun
illuminating
our
early history.
That sun was
followed
by
centuries of
darkness and
gloom, and,
after a
long
series of
disasters,
the Russian
nation was
forced
back into the
icy
forests of the
North-East, brutalized
by slavery
and the
necessity
of
labouring
on a
barren
soil,
and almost cut off from
communication
with
the
centre of
Christendom.
Russia fell into a
state
of
barbarism
increased
by
a
stupid
and
ignorant
kind of
national
pride,
and when the
pious
Muscovite,
forgetful
of St.
Vladimir s real
Christianity,
devoted
himself to absurd
disputes
on
minute
points
of
ritual,
suddenly,
out of all
this
chaos of
barbarism
and
misery,
arose the colossal
figure
of Peter
the
Great.
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Being
filled with an
enlightened patriotism
that
was
quick
to
perceive
the true needs of the
country,
he cast aside the blind nationalism of
Moscovy,
and
let
nothing
hinder him in his task of
giving
Russia
the civilization
that she
despised.
He did
not,
like a
mighty protector,
summon this
foreign
civili
zation,
but went to seek it in its own
home,
in the
guise
of a humble servant and industrious
apprentice.
In
spite
of the
grave
defects in his
private
character,
he continued to the end of his life to set a noble
example
of devotion to
duty
and of civic virtues.
A definite
national
work,
that has had such
pre
cursors,
ought
to be
great
and
magnificent
;
a
country
that,
in its barbarous
state,
was
represented by
St. Vladimir
and Peter the
Great,
ought
to aim
very high.
But the true
greatness
of Russia is
a dead letter to our
spurious patriots,
who wish
to
impose upon
the Russian nation a mission in
history
that
they
themselves
have devised.
. . .
Was it worth while for Russia to have suffered and
struggled
during
a thousand
years,
to have become
Christian under St.
Vladimir,
and
European
under
Peter the
Great,
occupying always
a
place apart
between
East and
West,
if it was
only
that thus
she
might
become a means of
realizing
the
great
idea
of Serbia and
Bulgaria
?"
These were not the words of a
desperate
man,
for Soloviev never
despaired;
he
only
condemned
narrowness
in the name of wider and
higher
aims.
"
We must
not, moreover,
exaggerate
the fears
of
pessimists.
Russia has not
yet
abandoned her
raison
d
etre,
nor been false to the faith and love
SOLOVIEV AS
THEOLOGIAN
197
of her
early youth.
It is still within her
power
to
renounce the selfish
policy
and national
dulness
that
would
necessarily
render our
historical mission
a
failure. The artificial
product
known as
public
opinion,
made and sold
by
an
opportunist
press,
has not
yet
stifled our
national
conscience,
which
will
discover a truer
expression
of the real Russian
ideal.
We need not
go
far to seek
it,
for it is
already present,
revealed in the
religious
character
of the
people,
foreshadowed and
indicated
by
the
most
important
events and the
greatest
personalities
in our
history.
And,
if that were not
enough,
we
have still
more
weighty
and
trustworthy
evidence
the
revealed Word of God."
This
revealed
word,
silent as it is
regarding
Russia and all
nationalities later than the
time of
Christ,
is
eloquent
on the
universalist
obligations
of
societies and
individuals.
To share in the life of the
Universal
Church,
in
the
development
of the entire
Christian
civilization,
and to share in it
according
to one s own
particular
strength
and
ability,
is the one true mission and aim
of each nation. It is a
self-evident and
elementary
truth that no
individual
organ
can be
thought
of
as
isolated and set in
opposition
to other
organs,
but as
united with all the
other
parts
of the
living
body.
From
the
Christian
point
of
view,
it is
undeniable that this
quite
elementary
truth is
applicable
to the human
race,
the
body
of
Christ.
Christ
Himself
recognized
the
existence and
vocation
of all
nations,
when He
addressed the
Apostles
(Matt,
xxviii.
19),
but He did not
speak
to
any
ig8
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
one nation in
particular,
because,
for
Him,
they
existed
only
in their
organic
and moral
union,
as
living
members of one
spiritual body.
Thus
Christianity
admits the
permanence
of national
life and the
rights
of
nations,
but condemns
national
ism,
which
is,
in a
nation,
what
egotism
is in an
individual."
This
general
truth is as
applicable
to Russia
as to other nations.
"
The Russians are a Christian
people,
and con
sequently,
to ascertain the true Russian
idea,
we
must not ask what Russia will do
by
and for
herself,
but what she
ought
to do in the name of the Christian
principle
that she
professes,
and for the
good
of the
universal
Christianity
to which she
belongs.
If she
is to
accomplish
her
mission,
she must with heart and
soul enter into the common
life of the Christian
world,
and use all her national
strength
in
effecting,
together
with other
nations,
that
perfect
and uni
versal
unity
of the human
race,
the firm foundation
of which is
given
us in the Church of Christ."
Soloviev was
approaching
the real heart of the
matter his views on the ecclesiastical
organization
of Russia.
"
The
spirit
of national
egotism
is not
easily
overcome.
It has found means of
taking
root in
our
midst,
without
openly denying
the
religious
character
innate in the Russian
people.
Not
only
does it admit that the Russians are
Christians,
but
it
proclaims
emphatically
that
they
are
pre-eminently
Christian,
and that the Church is the true basis of
our national
life;
but this assertion is
only
an excuse
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
igg
for the
pretentious
claim to
possess
the
monopoly
of faith and Christian
life,
and to have the Church
solely
with us. In this
way,
the
Church,
which
is
really
the immovable rock of universal
unity
and
solidarity,
becomes to Russia the
palladium
of a narrow
nationalism,
and often even the
passive
instrument of a selfish and
spiteful policy.
"
Our
religion,
as manifested in the faith of the
people
and in our
public worship,
is
perfectly
orthodox. The Russian
Church,
inasmuch as she
preserves
the true
faith,
the
apostolic
succession,
and valid
sacraments,
participates essentially
in
the universal Church founded
by
Christ.
If,
un
happily,
this
unity
is
only
latent
among
us,
and not
a
living reality,
it is because for centuries the
body
of our Church has been fettered to a foul
corpse,
that
poisons
her as it
decomposes.
"
The official institution
represented by
our
ecclesiastical
government
and school of
theology
maintains at all costs its exclusive and
particular
character,
and
certainly
is not a
living portion
of
the true Universal Church founded
by
Christ."
Soloviev had never
previously
so
clearly
dis
tinguished
the
popular
faith of the Russians and the
organization
that
professes
to control it. Gentle
as he
was,
Soloviev abandoned the latter to the
judgment
of Ivan
Aksakov,
a decided
anti-papist.
"
If we are to believe its
supporters,
our Church
is a
large
but faithless
flock,
and the
police
are
the
shepherds,
who,
with their
whips,
drive the lost
sheep
into the
sheepfold.
Does this
agree
with
the true
conception
of Christ s Church ? If
not,
200 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
our Church has ceased to be Christ s
Church;
what
is
it,
then ? A State institution that
may
serve
the interests of the State and
promote morality.
But we must not
forget
that the Church is a
domain,
where no alteration of the moral basis is
admissible,
where no
infidelity
to the vital
principle
can remain
unpunished,
and
where,
if one
lies,
the lie is uttered
not to
men,
but to God. A Church unfaithful to
Christ is the most barren and abnormal
pheno
menon on the face of the
earth,
doomed to failure
by
God s word. A Church
forming part
of a
State,
of a
Kingdom
of this
world/
has been false
to its
mission,
and must share the fate of all the
kingdoms
of this world. It has ceased to have in
itself
any
raison d
etre,
and condemns itself to weak
ness and death.
"
The Russian conscience is not free in
Russia,
and
religious thought
is
stagnant,
the abomination
of desolation
reigns
in
holy places; speech,
the
weapon
of the
mind,
is
put
down
by
the material
force of the
State;
and around the Church we
see,
not
angels
of
God,
guarding
its
portals,
but
gen
darmes and
police inspectors, upholding Orthodoxy,
and
directing
our consciences."
In
conclusion,
Soloviev ends this
scathing
criti
cism with another
quotation
from Aksakov :
"
The
health-giving
breath of the
spirit
of
truth,
the
spirit
of
charity,
the
spirit
of
liberty
and the
spirit
of life is
lacking
in the Russian Church."
He then
suddenly
reverts to his distinction
between the faith of the
people,
and the
bureaucracy
of the official Church.
SOLOVIEV
AS THEOLOGIAN
201
"
An
institution
forsaken
by
the
spirit
of truth
cannot be the true Church of God.
We must not
abandon
the
religion
of our forefathers,
nor the
piety
of the Orthodox
people
with their
sacred
traditions
and
objects
of veneration.
It is
plain
that the one sacrifice
that we
ought
to make
to
truth
is the
pseudo-ecclesiastical
institution,
so
well described
by
the Orthodox
author
whom
I
have
quoted,
the
institution
that is founded
on
servility
and material interest,
and that acts
by
means of fraud and violence."
The Christian
spirit
of the masses and the
genuine
Orthodoxy
of their faith
required
and had a
right
to be set free from the
oppressive
supervision
of an
administration
that claimed
to be ecclesiastical
in
character,
but
was,
in
fact,
opposed
to the true
Church
of Christ.
"
Whatever
may
be the intrinsic
qualities
of the
Russian
people,
they
cannot act in a normal
way
as
long
as the
thought
and conscience
of the nation
are
paralyzed
by
violence and obscurantism.
Our
first
duty,
therefore,
is to let in
pure
air and
light,
to remove
the artificial
barriers
which
keep
the re
ligious
feeling
of our race in isolation and
inactivity,
and to
open up
a
straight path
leading
to full and
living
truth. But
people
fear the truth because
it is Catholic
i.e.,
universal,
and
they
desire to
have at all costs a
religion apart,
distinctively
Russian,
and a Church united
with the
Empire.
They
do not care for this Church
in
itself,
but value
it as the attribute
and
symbol
of their exclusive
nationalism."
2&2
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
Those who refuse to
sacrifice their
national
egotism
to universal truth
cannot
be,
and
ought
not
to assume the name
of,
Christians.
"
Preparations
are
being
made for
celebrating
solemnly
the ninth
centenary
of the introduction
of
Christianity
into Russia. I
think,
however,
that
the
celebration will be
premature.
Some
patriots
talk as if St. Vladimir s
baptism,
efficacious as it
was to the
prince himself,
had been to the nation
only
a
baptism
of
water,
and that we
ought
to
be
baptized
a second time
by
the
spirit
of truth
and the fire of
charity.
This second
baptism
is
absolutely necessary,
if not for Russia as a
whole,
at least for the section of
society
that
speaks
and
acts at the
present
day.
If it is to become
Christian,
it must renounce a new form of
idolatry,
less
gross
indeed,
but not less absurd and far more
harmful,
than the
idolatry practised by
our
pagan
ancestors
and cast aside
by
St.
Vladimir. I mean that new
idolatry,
that mad
epidemic
of
nationalism,
that is
urging
nations to
worship
their own
image,
instead
of the
supreme
and universal
Godhead."
God,
who
governs
the
universe,
willed to establish
through
His
Son,
Jesus Christ,
a
Church with no
limitations of
time and
space,
a
universal
Church,
in
which
"
the
past
and the
future,
the traditional
and the
ideal,
are not
mutually exclusive,
but
equally
essential and
indispensable."
The
principle
of the
past,
or of
paternity,
is
realized in the Church
by
the
priesthood.
A
universal or Catholic Church must have a
universal
or
international
priesthood,
centralized and unified
SOLOVIEV
AS THEOLOGIAN 203
in the
person
of one
Father,
common
to all nations,
the
supreme
Pontiff.
It is
plain
that a national
priesthood
cannot,
as
such,
represent
the universal
paternity embracing
all nations alike.
The re
union of the
clergy
of various nationalities
into
one oecumenical
body
cannot be effected
except by
means of an international
centre,
real and
perma
nent,
with
power
and
right
to resist all tendencies
to
particularism.
"
The real
unity
of a
family,
if it is to be
regular
and
lasting, requires
a common father,
or one who can take his
place.
If individuals
and nations are to be bound
together
into one
family,
the
paternal principle
in
religion
must be
realized on earth
through
an ecclesiastical
mon
archy, capable
of
gathering together
all the national
and individual
elements,
and of
being always
the
living image
and free instrument
of God our
Father."
Thus true
patriotism
and
genuine
Christianity
ought
to
impel
all Russians to
promote
the
religious
transformation
of their
country.
"
Thanks to her historical conditions,
Russia
displays
the most
complete
development,
and the
most vivid
expression
of an absolute
national
State,
rejecting
the
unity
of the Church and
suppress
ing religious liberty.
If we were a
pagan
nation,
it would be
quite possible
for us to
crystallize
our
selves
definitely
into such a state. But the Russians
are
fundamentally
Christian,
and the excessive
development
of the anti-Christian
principle
of the
absolute
State is
only
the reverse of the true
principle
*4 VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
of the
Kingship
of
Christ,
which
underlies
the
Christian
state."
A
change
of
front is still
possible, and,
being
obligatory,
it
offers
Russia a
glorious
future,
provided
that she will
acquiesce
in it.
The
Russian
Empire,
isolated in its
absolutism,
is a
menace to
Christendom,
a
probable
source of
endless
strife
and
warfare.
But
the
Russian
Empire,
willing
to
serve and
protect
the
Universal
Church and social
organization,
will
bring peace
and
blessing
to the
nations."
This
study
of the
Russian
idea led
up
to a
decisive
formula,
that is not
only
the end of
Soloviev s
pamphlet,
but the
summary
of all his
intellectual
activity
and
life-work :
The
Russian
ideal,
the
historical
mission of
Russia,
requires
us to
acknowledge
ourselves
members of
Christ s one
universal
family.
There is
nothing
exclusive
about this
idea,
which
is but a new
aspect
of the
Christian idea
itself,
and
if,
in
order to
accomplish
this
national
mission,
we
find it
incumbent
upon
us to act with
and
for,
rather than
against,
other
nations,
this is the
great
proof
that this idea is
correct. For
truth is
only
a form of
Good,
and the
Good is
incapable
of
envy."*
8
The
pamphlet
on the
Russian ideal
was sent to
Rome
by Mgr.
Strossmayer.
On
July 23, 1888, Cardinal
Rampolla
wrote:
"
I
have
forwarded the
little book to the
Holy Father,
ea
addens
quae
de
auctore
opusculi
et de
conversione in
praefatis
litteris
patefaciebas.
Sensa haec
Sanctitas
sua,
quae
omnes
populos
ad
Christi ovile
reducere
intense
cupit,
et
probavit
et
laudibus
prosecuta est,
ac
SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN
205
The Russian
Idea,
published
in
1888,
was the
forerunner of Russia and the Universal
Church,
which
appeared
in
1889.
In the third book of this remark
able
work,
the social
mysticism jars
somewhat
upon
a Western
theologian;
the boldness of
speech
and the continual use of
symbolical
language
are
in
harmony
with the taste of the East rather than
with our own. Some
comparisons
and
analogies
might
be inoffensive in
Russian,
but difficult to
express
in French.
Yet,
in
spite
of the defects in
the latter
part
of the
book,
it is as a
whole,
according
to M. Ta
vernier,
"
admirable in the
knowledge,
logic,
and
eloquence
"
that it
displays.
It
begins
with a
long
introduction,
in which the author
sketches,
in broad
outline,
the
history
of the chief
errors
threatening
Christian
thought
and
practice
since the foundation of the Church. He details
"
the inner contradictions of this
revolutionary
individualism
"
from which the world is
suffering;
he
regards
them as
being
the
logical
result of the
habits of those
spurious Christians,
who were un
willing
to
bring
their
public
life into
conformity
with their
speculative
belief.
"
The human race
believed that it was
enough
to
profess
faith in
Christ s
Divinity,
without
taking
His
teaching
seriously.
Certain texts from the
Gospel
were so
arranged
that
one could derive whatever one wanted from
them,
whilst men
conspired
to
keep
silence
regarding
Deum forventer
exorat,
qui
id munus
omnipotent!
sua
gratia
hoc
miraculum
patrare potest,
ut communia desi-
deria exaudiat."
(Quoted by
Dr. Svetozar
Ritig
from the
diocesan archives of
Agram.)
206
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
other texts that did not fit in with these
arrange
ments.
They
were never tired of
repeating
the
commandment :
Render to Caesar the
things
that
are Caesar
s,
and to
God,
the
things
that are God
s,
in order to sanction a
system
that
gave
Caesar all
and God
nothing. They
were careful not to
quote
the words: All
power
is
given
me in heaven and
on earth.
They
looked
upon
Christ as a
sacrificing
priest
and as an
atoning
victim,
but not as
king.
. . .
Thus
history
has
witnessed,
as we do
now,
the
strange
phenomenon
of a
society
professedly
Christian and
yet really pagan,
not
only
in its
life,
but in the law
governing
its life."
According
to the law of
charity taught by
Christ
for the divinization of
men,
the
Kingdom
of God was
to be established on earth
through
the
agency
of
the Universal Church. It was to realize the
triple
union so often mentioned
by
Soloviev in his Russian
works;
the sacerdotal union or
hierarchical
organiza
tion of the Church
properly
so-called,
the
royal
union or
agreement
on the
part
of the rulers to render
the State
truly
Christian,
and the
prophetic
union
or
joint
action of the saints in order to imbue
Christian
society
with the true
spirit
of God.
Our Lord
prayed
that all His followers
might
be
one,
ut omnes unum sint. Now
"
all are one in
the
Church,
through
the
unity
of the
hierarchy,
the faith and the
sacraments."
"
The
priesthood
is a
fait accompli,"
but the
State,
in which all are
equal
before
justice
and the
law,
cannot
accomplish
its mission
except by submitting
to the
Church,
that
supplies
it with moral and
religious
sanction,
SOLOVIEV AS
THEOLOGIAN
207
and a firm basis for its work. What the State will
be in its relations to
Christianity
is a
problem
of the
utmost
importance
to the historical
destiny
of
mankind.
A
society
that is
essentially
Christian i.e.
,
governed
by
the law of
charity,
will
always
remain
an ideal not realized on
earth;
but the
attitude
adopted by
States and rulers towards the
Universal
Church,
according
as it hinders or
advances sacer
dotal
activity,
will do much to retard or
promote
the
gathering
of all men into
supernatural
brother
hood in
Christ,
and the formation of
"
the
spiritual
communion of all who are
regenerate,
and have
become sons of the second
Adam." This is the sole
bond of
true and effectual
solidarity
between
nations and individuals.
In the
pages
that
follow,
Soloviev
sketches in
broad
outline,
but with
profound
penetration,
the
warfare
that,
ever since the time of
Constantine,
has
raged
concerning
this
conception
of the
Christian
State;
the
alternations of success and
defeat,
due
to the
incessant efforts of
paganism
to
reassert
itself,
in
opposition
to the
teaching,
the
spirit
and the
Church of Christ.
Instead of
abandoning
its
underlying paganism,
the
Byzantine
Empire
attempted
to
justify
itself
by
tampering
with the
purity
of
Christianity.
The
emperors
almost
invariably
favoured
heresies of
every
kind,
and their
compromises
between truth
and error
were a
source of
trouble from the
fourth
to the ninth
century.
"
Intimate
relations
between
Church and State
2o8 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
presuppose
the
supremacy
of the
former,
since the
divine is anterior and
superior
to the human.
Heresy
assailed the
perfect unity
of the divine and
human natures in
Christ,
in order thus to sever the
organic
bond of union between Church and
State,
and to secure for the latter absolute
independence."
The
imperialist
and
pagan tendency
was towards
separation
;
the Catholic and
truly
Christian
tendency
was,
on the
contrary,
towards union. Soloviev
emphasized
this
fact,
and showed in
vigorous
language
how the
Aryan,
Nestorian,
Monophysite,
and Iconoclastic heresies had all tended to
separate
Church and State.
"
Each error
in turn was over
come
by
the
opposition
of the
pope,
and
consequently
the anti-Christian
despots
of the
Byzantine
Empire
finally
made a direct attack
upon
what
is,
in the
Christian
Church,
the material realization
of the
divine,
the fixed
point,
the centre of all exterior
and visible
action,
the
image
and instrument
of
God s
power
the
apostolic
See of
Rome,
the
miraculous ikon of universal
Christianity."
"
A
decisive battle had to be
fought
between the
pseudo-
Christian
Byzantine
Empire
and the orthodox
Papacy,
which was not
only
the infallible
guardian
of Christian truth,
but also the first realization of
this truth in the
history
of the human race."
After
the
period
of
"
imperial
heresies
"
came
that of the evolution
of
"
orthodox
"
Byzantinisin,
"
a new
phase
of the anti-Christian
spirit."
In this
portion
of
history
the decisive
part
was
played
by
a third
factor,
which had not the
courage
of the
great
Eastern confessors
of the Church
SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN 209
(Athanasius,
Chrysostom, etc.),
nor the
perversity
of the heresiarchs.
"
The
great majority
of the
higher clergy
of the Greek Church
belonged
to what
may
be called a semi-orthodox or orthodox anti-
Catholic
party. Being by
conviction, habit,
or
tradition devoted to
dogma, they
had
nothing
to
say
on
principle against
the
unity
of the universal
Church,
provided
that the centre of this
unity
should
be in their
midst;
and
since,
as a matter of
fact,
the centre of
unity
existed
elsewhere,
they preferred
to be Greeks rather than Christians. ... As
Christians,
they
could not on
principle
be Caesaro-
papists;
but as Greek
patriots they
could
profess
their
preference
of
Byzantine Caesaropapism
to
the Roman
Papacy."
These anti-Catholic and anti-
papal
reactions occurred at first
only
after the down
fall of a fresh
heresy.
As soon as the first enthusiasm
over the
triumph
of Catholic
Orthodoxy
cooled
down,
a
large proportion
of the Eastern
hierarchy began
to
regret
that this
triumph
was due to the Roman
Pontiffs,
and some
change
was felt to be
necessary.
A solution of the
problem
was discovered at
length by
Photius,
who saw that the
Popes
would
have no excuse for interference in the
East,
if the
emperors
would but refrain from
legislation
on
points
of
dogma.
If the anti-Catholic Orthodox
party
were reassured on this
matter,
they
would
gladly
put up
with a
purely pagan
State,
social and
political.
The
compact
was concluded on these
terms. The
emperors
once for all embraced Ortho
doxy
as an abstract
dogma,
and the Orthodox
hierarchy
blessed the
paganism
of
public
life in
4
2io VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
scecula s&culorum. ... It is a
significant
fact,
though
often
overlooked,
that after
842
not a
single
Emperor
of
Constantinople
was a heretic or a
heresiarch. The
object
of this
compact
was to
proclaim
aloud the
particularism
of the
East,
its
independence
of the
Pope,
and its
disregard
of the
universal Church.
Thus this so-called
Byzantine Orthodoxy
was
really nothing
but
heresy
in a new
disguise.
This
contradiction between
professed orthodoxy
and
practical heresy
was the true cause of the downfall
of the
Byzantine Empire.
To one who has not
studied the anti-Christian
tendency
of the later
Empire,
the ease and
rapidity
with which the
Mahometan
conquest
was effected must seem most
astonishing.
Five
years
were
enough
to overcome
three
great patriarchates
in the Eastern
Church;
there were no conversions to be
made,
but
only
an
old veil to be torn
away."
Providence transferred to France and
Germany
the mission of
establishing
a Christian State.
"
This
transference was effected
by
the
only
Christian
power
with a
right
and
duty
to effect it
viz.,
by
the
power
of St.
Peter,
who holds the
keys
of the
Kingdom."
Sincere efforts to
accomplish
this work were made
by great
Christians,
such as
Charlemagne
and
Otho,
St.
Henry,
and St.
Louis,
but their
successors,
the
Emperor Henry
IV. and
King Philip
the
Fair,
were
jealous
of the
Papacy.
The
political advantage
of
Papal
influence even in
temporal
matters was felt under such
pontiffs
as
Gregory
VII.,
Innocent
III.,
and Innocent
IV.,
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 211
exceptional
men,
able to deal with the details of
a vast and
complex policy,
and
subordinating always
the
temporal
to the
spiritual
and universal.
Many
others, however,
by
their
personal
faults,
dragged
religion
down to the level of
things
material. Such
were the successes and failures of
righteousness
in the Middle
Ages.
Even
so,
the
Papacy,
not
having among
its
supporters any truly
devoted
State,
failed to
bring
Western
society
into a Christian and Catholic
organization.
"
Peace based on
Christianity
did
not
exist,
and a
supernatural
intervention alone
secured the national existence of France."*
Modern States have tried to
dispense
with and
yet
do more than the
Church, but,
apart
from
material
progress,
what have
they
achieved ?
Secularized
Europe,
at the end of the nineteenth
century,
was
given
over to universal
militarism,
national
hatred,
social
antagonism,
class
enmity,
and,
in the case of
individuals,
a
lowering
of the
moral force. Soloviev s ardent
patriotism
was
roused to
indignation by
his
survey
of
past failures,
and he wrote:
"
The
profoundly religious
and mon
archical character of the Russian
nation,
some
significant
facts in the
past,
the enormous size of
our
Empire,
the
great
latent
power
of the national
spirit
contrasted with the barrenness and
poverty
of its
present
condition,
all these
things
seem to
suggest
that Russia s
destiny
is to furnish the
*
This
remark,
made
by
a Russian writer some
years
before B.
Joan
of Arc was declared
venerable,
seems
worthy
of notice.
212
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
universal
Church with the
political power
that
she
must
have,
in order to save and
regenerate
Europe
and the world."
It is incredible
that the
patriotism
of one who
desired
such a mission for his
country
could ever
be
questioned.
In his
opinion
the first
step
to be
taken
was
"
to establish a moral and intellectual
bond
of union
between the
religious
consciousness
of Russia
and the truth of the universal Church."
In these
words
he defined the
object
of his book.
It is essential
to bear them in
mind,
if we are to
understand
the author s
conduct,
and not be
astonished
at the
symbolical
conceptions
contained
in the third
book. Soloviev
wrote,
it is
true,
in
French,
but
he wrote for
Russians,
and was well
acquainted
with their habitual trend of
thought.
Under
the
veil of
allegory,
he induced his readers
to seek
the
light.
One of these
allegories, very
simple
and
touching,
occurs at the close of his
long
Introduction.
A church
was to be
erected,
and the
architect,
before
going
away,
traced out the
general plan
and
laid
the foundations.
To his
pupils
he said:
"
I leave
you
the firm foundations that I have
laid,
and
the
general
outline that I have drawn.
That
will
be
enough
to
guide you,
if
you
are faithful
to
your
duty.
Moreover,
I shall not forsake
you,
but
shall
be ever with
you
in
thought
and
spirit."
Soon
afterwards
the workmen
began
to
quarrel;
some
said
that
they
might
as well leave the founda
tions
already
laid,
and build a church
elsewhere,
keeping
the
original
design.
In the heat of their
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
213
argument
the men went so far as to assert
(contrary
to their real
opinion, frequently
manifested)
that
the architect never
laid,
nor even
planned, any
foundations for the church. Others
proposed
to
put
off the
building
until the master himself should
return.
Many
workmen,
after vain
attempts
to
build in another
place, gave up
work
altogether,
and the most zealous
among
them devoted their
life to
thinking
over the
plan
for an ideal
church,
whilst the
majority
were contented with
thinking
of it once a week.
However,
even
amongst
these
separatist
labourers,
there were some who remembered
the
great
architect s words:
"
These are the firm
foundations that 1 have
laid,
and
my
church is to be
built
upon
them." And one man said to the others:
"
Let us
acknowledge
ourselves to be
wrong,
and let
us do
justice
and
give
honour to our
comrades,
and
join
them in
rearing
the
great building already
begun.
We must all work
together,
if it is to be
completed
on the
proper
foundations." This man s
speech
seemed
strange
to mdst of his
fellows,
some
of whom called him
Utopian,
whilst others accused
him of
pride
and
presumption.
But the voice of
conscience told him
clearly
that his absent master
was with him in
spirit
and in truth.
Between this
long passage
and the book
itself,
Soloviev inserted a solemn declaration or
explicit
profession
of
faith,
followed
by
a
prayer
that reveals
his
patriotism
and
Christianity.
He writes:
"
As
a member of the true and venerable Orthodox
Oriental or Greco-Russian
Church,
which
speaks,
2i
4
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
not
through
an anticanonical
synod,
nor
through
the
agents
of the secular
power,
but
by
the voice
of her
great
Fathers and
Doctors,
I
recognize
as the
supreme judge
in matters of
religion,
him who was
recognized
as such
by
St.
Irenaeus,
St.
Dionysius
the
Great,
St.
Athanasius,
St.
John Chrysostom,
St.
Cyril,
St.
Flavian,
Blessed Theodoret
(sic),
St. Maxi-
mus the
Confessor,
St. Theodore of
Studium,
St.
Ignatius,
etc.,
that is to
say,
I
recognize
the
Apostle
Peter,
who lives still in his
successors,
and who did
not hear in vain our Lord s words: Thou art
Peter,
and
upon
this rock I will build
my
Church. . . .
Strengthen thy
brethren. . . . Feed
my sheep,
feed
my
lambs.
Soloviev s care to
appeal
to the
great
Oriental
tradition whilst
proclaiming
his obedience to the
See of Peter is
very
remarkable,
and still more
remarkable is his
prayer
to St. Peter for the "hundred
millions of Russian Christians ... a multitude full
of
strength
and ardent
desires,
but with no true
knowledge
of its
destiny."
The hour had come for
them to make common
cause,
in order to advance the
Kingdom
of God in the future
history
of the
world,
and to
promote theocracy
i.e.,
Christianity
in
public
life,
and in
politics.
This
programme
includes
liberty
for the
oppressed, protection
for
the
weak,
justice
and
peace.
"
Open
then to the
Russians,
thou
keybearer
of
Christ,
and
may
the
gate
of
history
be to them and to the whole world
the
gate
of the
Kingdom
of God."
After this introduction in the first book Soloviev
discussed the
religious
state of Russia and Eastern
SOLOVIEV
AS THEOLOGIAN 215
Christianity;
in the second
book the
authority
of
the ecclesiastical
monarchy
founded
by Jesus
Christ
;
and in the third
book he tried to formulate
a social
application
of the Trinitarian
principle.
As these three
books
will
probably
be
reprinted
with
annotations,
it is
unnecessary
to
analyze
them
in detail.
It will be
enough
to draw
attention
to
the considerations
that reveal
Soloviev
s
personal
conclusions,
for in the
present
work our chief
aim is to
bring
into
prominence
his
deep
underlying
thoughts.
The first
book,
which abounds
in shrewd remarks,
avoids
all
appearance
of
being
a serious
indictment
of ecclesiastical
separatism.
Nevertheless,
Solo
viev s
arguments
lose none of their
force,
in
fact,
they gain
in
weight
through being
brought
forward
in a
very
concrete
and
vivid manner.
Solo
viev
insists on the distinction
already
noticed
between
the
orthodoxy
of the Russian
nation
(which
deserves
its
name,
since the
people
are Catholic
in
their
faith and
piety),
and the
pseudo-orthodoxy
of official
theologians,
which
is anti-Catholic.
"
This
pseudo-orthodoxy
of our
theological
schools
has
nothing
in common
with the faith
of the uni
versal Church,
nor with the
piety
of the
Russian
nation,
nor does it contain
any positive
element.
"
For a thousand
years
this
pseudo-orthodoxy
has
been reduced
to
appealing
to an (Ecumenical
Council,
which
ought
to be declared
impossible,
and it owes its existence
to the
goodwill
and
support
of the
temporal power.
No
positive
definition
of
the Church exists
or can exist
in
Russia;
neither
the official
hierarchy,
nor the Old Believers,
nor
216
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
the
Slavophile
party
could
justify
their idea of a
Church.
Non-Catholics
always
abandon one of
the two
elements,
the
divine and the
human,
that
ought
to
make
up
the
Church
Militant of the
Incarnate
Word.
They
shrink
from the
inevitable
contrasts
that are
brought
into
harmony by
this first union
the
contrast
between
unity
and
diversity,
the
contrast
between
hierarchical
authority
and volun
tary adherence,
the
contrast
between
doctrinal
infallibility
and
confession of
incapacity
to
explain
mysteries,
the
contrast
between the
fundamental
sanctity
of
the
Church and the
faults of her in
dividual
members,
the
contrast
between her
spiritual
vitality
and her
material
poverty,
and the
contrast
between her
catholicity
and the
universal
hostility
towards her
centre. In order to
avoid these con
trasts, non-Catholics
abandon on each
point
one or
other of
the two
elements on
which Christ
insists,
and the
consequence
is,
that the one which
they
desire to
save
breaks down at once. For
instance,
the
adherents of the
separated
Eastern
Church wish
to
ascribe to it a real and
positive
unity, yet
the
very
name that
they give
it
denotes two
nationalities,
for
it is
officially
described as the
Greco-Russian
Church.
There is no
unity
either of faith or
ritual;
with
regard
to
baptism,
the first
entrance into the
Church,
Constantinople
teaches one
thing
and
Petrograd
another,
and
consequently
a man who is an
Orthodox
Christian in
Russia,
is a
heathen in the
eyes
of the
Orthodox
patriarch
of
Turkey.
From one end of
the Eastern
Chruch to the other
abound
most
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
217
serious differences of
doctrine,
that threaten to
destroy
intercommunion,
and
occasionally actually
do so. Enforced silence alone
prevents
us from
hearing
of all these
public ruptures.
One
note, however,
is common to all these auto-
cephalous
Churches:
"
Each
possesses
a
clergy
that
aims at
being
national and
nothing
else,
and that
must,
whether it likes it or
not,
acknowledge
the
absolute
supremacy
of the secular
government.
The
sphere
of national existence cannot in itself
have more than one
centre,
and that is the ruler
of the State."
The
episcopate
of
any particular
Church
cannot,
in its
dealings
with the
State,
lay
claim to the fulness
of
apostolic power except by really joining
the nation
to the universal or international
Kingdom
of Christ.
A national
Church,
that is
unwilling
to submit to
the absolutism of the
State,
and so to cease to be a
Church at
all,
must
necessarily
have
support
outside
the boundaries of the State and nation."
At the end of this first book Soloviev discusses
the curious idea of
establishing
a
religious
centre,
a
quasi-Papacy,
either at
Constantinople
or at
Jeru
salem;
and he arrives at the
justifiable
conclusion:
"
In the first
place
we must
acknowledge
ourselves
to be what we
really
are an
organic part
of the
great body
of
Christians,
and we must
proclaim
our close connection with our brethren in the
West,
who
possess
the central
organ
that we lack. This
moral act of
justice
and
charity
would in itself be
a
great step
in
advance,
and is
indispensable
to all
permanent
progress
in future."
218 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
In the second book of La Russie et I
Eglise
Uni-
verselle Soloviev
expounds
the new and definite
opinions
that he has formed. Fourteen
chapters
are devoted to
discussing,
with references to
Scripture
and
tradition,
the nature and
powers
of
the ecclesiastical
monarchy
founded
by Jesus
Christ. The various
objections,
both ancient and
modern,
whether materialist or
Orthodox,
are
considered and answered.
In the first book the course of
argument
elicited
definite statements such as the
following:
"The
Papacy,
as it now
exists,
is not an
arbitrary usurpa
tion of
power,
but a lawful
development
of the
principles
that were
plainly
active before the
cleavage
in the
Church,
and the Church has never
raised
any protest against
them."
"
Our
Lord,
after
praying
that all His followers
might
be
one,
as if this were the climax of His
work,
desired to
give
this work a firm and
organic
basis,
and so He founded His visible
Church,
and
gave
her
one chief ruler in the
person
of St.
Peter,
in order
thus to
safeguard
her
unity."
"
If there is
any delegation
of
power
in the
Gospel
it is this. No
temporal government
received
any
promise
or sanction from Christ. He founded
nothing
but the
Church,
and He founded it on the
monarchical
power
of Peter: Thou art
Peter,
and
upon
this rock I will build
my
Church."
The contents of the second book
may
be summed
up
under three chief
headings
:
SOLO VIE V AS THEOLOGIAN
219
i. THE PRIMACY OF PETER AS A PERMANENT
INSTITUTION.
The constitutive basis of the universal Church
is this: one
man, who,
with God s
assistance,
is
answerable for the whole world. The Church
rests,
not
upon
the
unanimity
of all believers for this
is
impossible
nor
upon
the
always
doubtful
agree
ment of a
Council,
but
upon
the real and
living unity
of the Prince of the
Apostles. Consequently,
each
time that the
question
of truth is
propounded
to
Christendom,
it will be solved
decisively
neither
by
the consensus of mankind in
general
nor
by
the
advice of a few. The
arbitrary opinions
of men
give
rise to
nothing
but
heresies,
and a
hierarchy,
that is
decentralized and
given
over to the
mercy
of the
secular
power,
will refrain from
taking any
action,
or will do so
only
in
councils,
such as the robber-
council of
Ephesus. Only
in her union with the
rock on which she is founded can the Church hold
true
councils,
and determine the truth
by
means
of authentic formulae."
2. THE UNCHANGING AUTHORITY OF PETER.
"
Peter formulated the fundamental
dogma
of
our
religion
not
by
means of collective
deliberation,
but with the direct
help
of
God,
as
Jesus
Christ
Himself declared. His word
regulates
the faith of
Christians
by
its own
force,
not
through
the
agree
ment of others ex
sese,
non autem ex consensu
220 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
3.
DIVINE ASSISTANCE RENDERS THIS AUTHORITY
INFALLIBLE.
"It is no false
opinion
or
wavering
faith,
but a
fixed and definite
belief,
that unites mankind with
the truth of
God,
and forms the immovable founda
tion of the universal Church. This foundation is
the faith of
Peter,
still
living
in his
successors;
a
faith that is
personal,
in order that it
may
be
made known to
men,
and
also,
by
divine
assistance,
superhuman,
in order that it
may
be infallible."
It would be
easy
to make more
quotations
from
this second book. The soundest
arguments
are
presented
in
very original
form,
and are as
pleasing
as
they
are forcible. We
cannot, however,
quote
one hundred and
twenty pages,
and the reader
can,
if he
likes,
refer to the
original
text. This
reserve on our
part
will
prove
to Orthodox readers
that we
really
desire to avoid all
polemics,
and to
refrain from
any
remark that
might
hurt them. It
is our aim to
give
a
perfectly objective
account of
Soloviev s line of
thought,
and on this
topic
it seems
better to refer to his own statements as
they
stand
in the
book;
a choice of extracts
might
seem to
have been made in a biased and unfair manner.
We have
already
referred to the somewhat
strange
character of the third book. Its
very
title,
The Trinitarian
Principle
and its Social
Appli
cation,
might
well cause
surprise, although perhaps
this
surprise
would have
disappeared
had Soloviev
taken
pains
to
express
himself more
fully.
Cir-
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN 221
cumstances forced him to send in his
manuscript
before it was
revised,
or even
quite
finished. The
extraordinary
title becomes
intelligible
on reference
to a
passage
in the second book:
"
The one corner
stone of the Church is
Jesus,
but,
if we believe
Jesus,
the chief rock on which His Church is founded
is the Prince of the
Apostles,
and,
if we believe
Peter,
every
true Christian is a
living
stone of
the Church"
(i
Peter ii.
4, 5.)
These three truths
are
apparently contradictory,
but are
really
in
perfect harmony. Jesus
Christ,
the one cornerstone
of the
Kingdom
of God in the
purely religious
or
mystical
order,
appoints
St. Peter with his
permanent
power
as the foundation-stone of the Church in the
social
order,
for Christians in
general,
and each
member of the Christian
community, being
united
to Christ and
abiding
in the order that He estab
lished,
becomes an individual constitutive
element,
a
living
stone of the Church. In this
way, following
St.
Augustine
s
method,
Soloviev tried to discover
traces of the
Trinity
in the
natural,
material and
social
order,
as well as in Christ s
supernatural
work,
His Church and His sacraments. The
appli
cations of this
principle
are sometimes obscure and
sometimes
arbitrary,
as are those of the
great
Bishop
of
Hippo,
and
they
often need to be eluci
dated
by
means of other
passages
in Soloviev s
works. His true ideas thus become
intelligible,
and will be seen to be
quite
free from error.
Whilst he was
engaged upon
La Russie et I
Eglise
Universelle,
Soloviev was
planning
other works.
222
VLADIMIR SOLO VIE V
From 1888 onwards he contributed articles to the
Univers,
a French
periodical.
On
August 4,
n,
and
19,
1888,
there
appeared
in it a series of articles
on St. Vladimir and the Christian
State,
written on
the occasion of the nine hundredth
anniversary
of
the conversion of Russia. On
September
22, 1888,
he wrote
protesting eloquently against
a letter from
Cracow,
that had
appeared
four
days previously
under the
heading: Coup
d ceil sur I Histoire
Religi-
euse de la Russie a
propos
des Articles de M. Soloviev.
These
long
articles seem to have
escaped
the
notice of Soloviev s
Russian
biographers,
but
they
well deserve attention. In contrast to the
"
bureau
cratic
"
celebration of St. Vladimir s
baptism
in
988,
they
strike the note of Christian
praise.
A
few
passages
may
be
quoted
from them :
"
Just
at the time when the refined Greeks were
rejecting
the
pearl
of God s
Kingdom,
it was
picked
up by
Russia,
that was still half barbarous. The
pearl
was covered with
Byzantine
dust,
which is
piously preserved,
even to the
present day, by
Russian
theologians, by bishops
who serve the
State,
and
by
the bureaucratic
laymen
who
govern
the
Church
;
but the
pearl
itself is hidden in the hearts of
the Russian
people." (Here, again,
we have the
distinction of which Soloviev was so
fond.)
"
But
St.
Vladimir,
before
hiding
it
there,
showed it to
his
contemporaries
in all its
purity
and
beauty,
as
a
pledge
and
foreshadowing
of our
destiny."
When
he was
converted,
"
he did not become a
Byzantine
or half Christian. ... He
accepted Christianity
as a
whole,
and was filled with the moral and social
SOLOV1EV AS
THEOLOGIAN
223
spirit
of the
Gospel."
"
If
the
germ
of
social and
political
Christianity
was
planted
in
Russia nine
hundred
years ago,
why
did it not
take root ?"
"
Because after
the time of St.
Vladimir,
the
Eastern
Church
resigned
her
powers
to the
secular
govern
ment,"
which "was
justified
in
maintaining
its
independence of,
and
asserting
its
supremacy over,
a
spiritual
power
that
represented
nothing
but a
particular
or
national
Church,
cut off
from
the rest
of
Christendom.
When it is
said that the
State
ought
to be
subordinate to the
Church,
we must
mean
the
one,
indivisible, universal
Church
founded
by
Christ.
The head of
the State is
the
true
repre
sentative of the
nation as
such,
and a
hierarchy,
that
insists
upon
being
national and
nothing else,
must,
whether it likes it or
not,
acknowledge
the
secular
ruler as its
absolute
sovereign.
. . .
The
Church in her
very
nature is
not a
national
institution
and
cannot
become one
without
losing
her
true
raison d
etre. . . .
The
interests of
Christianity
are not
directly
committed to
the
national
State;
in
order to
uphold them,
the State
must
subordinate
itself to the
international
institution
that is
truly
representative
of
Christian
unityviz.,
the
Catholic
Church."
The
head of a
Christian
State
should be a
son of the
Church, and,
if he is to
be so
effectively,
the
Church
must
possess
a
power
independent
of
and
superior
to
that of
the
State.
With the
best
will in
the
world,
no
secular
monarch
can be
the
son of a
Church of
whom he is
the
head,
and
whom
he
governs
through
his
agents."
The
authority
of
224
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
a
prince
and the lawful
independence
of his
subjects,
national
greatness
and international alliances for
promoting
human
progress,
can derive
nothing
but
benefit to themselves from a
religious
influence
affecting
both
high
and low
alike,
and
appealing
to the conscience of individuals and of nations.
To the same
period belongs
Soloviev s
plan
for
publishing
in Paris a
"
review
wholly
devoted to
furthering
Slav
interests,
and
especially
to the re
conciliation of the two Churches. This was a
magnificent
scheme,
worthy
of
great
minds,
and
altogether
in
keeping
with the nature and immortal
destiny
of Catholicism."*
Nothing
came of the
design,
for the Review would
probably
have been
prohibited
in
Russia,
and Solo-
viev
preferred
to work
there,
and with
great courage,
to which we shall refer
again
later,
he returned to
Moscow. Thenceforth he took
pains
to
temper
the
audacity
of his
utterances,
so that the censor had
not much excuse for
suppressing
his books. For
instance,
in
1893
he did not venture to write two
of the articles that Constantin Constantinovitch
Arseniev asked him to contribute to the Grand
Dictionnaire
Encyclopedique.
In his letter of
refusal,
he
says:
"With
regard
to
Gregory
Nazianzen,
I
should have to discuss his views on the
development
*
These words occur in a letter written to Father
Pierling
by Mgr. Strossmayer
on
August
29, 1887.
The
Bishop
continues:
"
I shall of course subscribe to this review and
zealously support
this laudable
undertaking
in our
country.
... I
beg you,
dear friend and
brother,
to communicate
this fact to the
worthy
man who is selected
to edit the
review."
SOLOV1EV AS THEOLOGIAN
225
of
dogma,
his
opinion
that it was
necessary
to
keep
silence
regarding
the
divinity
of the
Holy
Ghost,
until the
public
conscience was
prepared
to
accept
this
truth,
and
lastly
his ideas on the
episcopal
councils,
especially
the
second,
that he considers
the
greatest scourge
of Christendom. As to
Gregory
of
Nyssa,
I could not conceal the fact
that,
according
to his
teaching,
the
Holy
Ghost
proceeds
also from
the Son. All this would arouse the censor s
opposi
tion and would
give
P v
(probably
Pobedonost-
sev)
the desired excuse for
excluding
me from work
on the
dictionary,
in the same
way
as I am
already
excluded from learned societies."
Soloviev s reserve in his latter works does not
indicate
any change
in his
convictions;
he
only
modified his tactics. Thenceforth his immediate
object
was to restore the true and
elementary
principles
of
Christianity
in the hearts of men. If
faith in
Jesus
Christ,
the Saviour of the
world,
were
to recover its
dominion,
if love of His work were to
influence the
intellect, soul,
and
activity
of
every
Russian,
there could be no doubt of their ultimate
religious progress. Unity
of
love,
not a
purely
official
agreement,
would
complete
the Church
according
to the Catholic
designs
of
Jesus
Christ
(see p. 212).
This confidence accounts for both the
prudence
and the boldness that Soloviev
displayed
in his
later works. He was bold in
demanding
the full
application
of Christian
principles
in statements of
dogma,
in individual
morality
and in
political
and
social
legislation.
He was
prudent
in no
longer
226 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
proclaiming openly anything
about
Catholicism,
except
such truths as would
pass
the
censor,
and
in
veiling
the rest under
allegories
more or less
transparent.
The censor did
not, however,
relax
his
vigilance,
and,
although
his
scrutiny
did not
disturb Soloviev s
peace
of
mind,
it awakened in
him
occasionally
a desire to
adopt
a bolder line of
action. He was criticized in
1890
for
having,
in a
paper
on
Japan, praised
the
Jesuits
and their
great
St. Francis
Xavier,
and this made him return to a
previous project.
As
early
as
1887
he wrote to
Father
Martinov,
expressing
his
indignation
as a
man, historian,
and
Christian,
at the innumerable
absurd calumnies current in Russia
against
the
Jesuits.
Samarine s
book,
containing
all these
calumnies,
had
just appeared,
but in
spite
of
appear
ances,
this was an
unsatisfactory
work,
and Soloviev
felt bound in common
honesty
to refute these false
statements in the name of Russia. He was well
equipped
to undertake this
refutation;
he had
profusely
annotated Samarine s text with
marginal
corrections,
and he had read
widely
on the
subject.
The
priests
whom he consulted advised him to
undertake
in
preference
works of more universal
importance,
less
compromising
to himself.
They
assured him that
they
were not alarmed
by calumny,
and reminded him that our Lord had called those
blessed,
whom men should
revile,
and
persecute,
and
speak
evil
of,
untruly,
for His sake.
Although
he
adopted
a tone that the censor
tolerated,
Soloviev did not alter his views.
SOLO VIE V A S
THEOLOGIAN
227
His last
work,
The Three
Conversations,
ends with
thirty pages
in
which his
undying
wish for
reunion
between Rome and Russia is
expressed
most elo
quently.
Even in the time of
Antichrist,
the
hopes
and duties of
Christians,
honest
though separated,
would not
change.
If
union had not then been
effected,
it would be realized at that
time,
even if
God had to raise to life the last
Pope,
and had to
give
the
stray sheep
another
John
to lead them to
Peter,
before the end of the world.
The
great parable,
that won for
Soloviev the
reputation
of a
prophet,
because in it he foretold
clearly
the
approaching
defeat of
Russia
by Japan,
sums
up
the
coming
conflict
between the two
cities,
and describes
briefly
what
would
probably
have been elaborated in The Future
of
Theocracy
viz.,
an
attempt
to
predict
the last
clays
of
history.
The
pagan
principle,
incarnate in
Antichrist and
his
anti-Pope,
seems
likely
to
prevail
over all
Christendom;
by
a false
semblance of
goodness,
it
will seduce vast
multitudes of
persons,
who
aim
only
at their own
advantage,
and
reveal the
unbelief
prevalent
everywhere.
No
apostate
loves
God
;
his
self-love leads him to
despise
our
crucified
Saviour,
Jesus Christ,
the
Incarnate
Word,
the Son
of
God.
All
who have
foresworn Christ will
gather
round
their
deified
Emperor,
and their
council,
held in
the
Imperial
Temple,
will
celebrate the union of
all the
various sects. This will be the
apotheosis
of the
human,
as
opposed
to the
divine,
and the
orchestra will
play
the March
of
United
Humanity.
228
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
Amidst this
general
treachery,
the
Pope,
another
Peter,
will be true to
Christ,
and a little band of
religious
and
laymen
will stand round
him,
fearlessly
chanting,
even in the
presence
of
Antichrist,
the
divine
promise:
Non
prcevalebunt,
non
pravalebunt
portce
inferi.
Two
other
groups,
very
small in
number,
will
also
offer resistance:
John,
the
Metropolitan,
representing
the Orthodox believers,
and Pauli,
the
professor,
in the name of some Protestants,
will
approach
Peter,
and
together
they
will confess
Christ,
the Son of
God,
the Incarnate Word,
who
died
and rose
again
for the salvation of the world.
The
(Ecumenical
Council
of hierarchical
and
lay
Christianity
will be infuriated
against
these three
groups
of faithful witnesses,
but will be unable
to
prevent
the
Pope
from
uttering
his contradicitur,
and
hurling
his threefold
anathema
against
Anti
christ,
who
will,
of
course,
determine
to
extirpate
these
fanatics.
He will believe that he has succeeded
in
ridding
himself
of the Vicar of
Christ,
but divine
intervention
will
prevent
the death
of the latter,
and
at this
last moment,
just
before
the
cataclysm
that
is destined
to overthrow Antichrist,
the reunion
of the Churches
will be effected.
John,
the
Metropolitan,
the
representative
of
Orthodoxy,
will
cry:
"
My
children,
the time has
come
for our
Lord s last
prayer
on behalf
of His
disciples
to be fulfilled,
that
they may
be one
;
may
our
brother
Peter therefore
be able to feed these few
remaining
sheep
of our Lord
s flock." The
repre
sentative
of the
last Protestant
believers
will also
SOLOVIEV AS THEOLOGIAN
229
in his turn
proclaim
: Tu es Petrus. Thus in soli
tude and darkness the union of the Churches will
be effected. But
suddenly
a
bright light
will flash
through
the
darkness,
and a
great sign
will
appear
in
heaven;
a woman will be
seen,
clothed with the
sun,
and
having
at her feet the moon,
and on her
head a crown of twelve stars. Behold our
Labarum,
let us
go
to
her,
will be the
Pope
s
exclamation,
and towards this Immaculate
Virgin
he will lead the two
men,
recently
united with
him,
and all true Christians."
Thus the
parable
ends,
and it was almost the last
thing
that Soloviev wrote. The
dialogue
in which
it occurs closes with a remark
showing
that he had
a curious
presentiment
of his
approaching
death:
"
The author of this
history
did not finish it.
Being
already
ill,
he said : I will write it as soon as I am
better. But he never
recovered,
and the end of
his
story
is buried with him."
A few weeks later Soloviev died
suddenly,
whilst
on a
journey
undertaken
in order to visit his mother.
He was
only forty-seven,
but his
strength
was
already
exhausted. We
may
wonder whether the friends
present
at his funeral ever read his
great parable;
whether
they
ever
weighed
the words with which
the
preface
to The Three Conversations
begins:
"
Is
my present
work
my Apologia
?" Did
they
notice that in this last
work,
Soloviev
complained
openly
of the
censorship, although
such
complaints
were of
very
rare occurrence with him ?
If
they
could answer these three
points
in the
affirmative,
they
must know that Soloviev to the
230
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
last toiled to
develop
in Orthodox Russia a less
narrow devotion to the
Church,
and some
day
this
Christian
spirit
will lead to re-union. To the end
he
prayed
that men of
goodwill,
and
especially
his
Russian
brethren,
might
at
length agree
in
recog
nizing,
as the true work of
Christ,
His universal
Church,
founded on
Peter,
and entrusted to his
infallible rule.
Did all Soloviev s friends understand him ? It
is not for us to
say,
but he himself
thought
not.*
One of his most devoted
friends,
Prince
Serge
Troubetzkoi,
at whose house he
died,
had to ask
for an
explanation
of The Three Conversations
;
and the notes that Soloviev wrote for him are
perhaps
the last words that he addressed to the
public. |
Soloviev
might
have
said,
in the words of the
Ukraine
poet,
G. S.
Skovorod,
one of his intimate
friends: "The world has
praised
me,
but it has
never understood me." Even those who knew
*
In his
panegyric
of
Soloviev,
delivered on
January
21,
1901,
at the
Academy
of
Science,
A. Koni shows that he
appreciated
his friend s
aims,
and
says:
"
A desire for the
reunion of the Churches lived in Soloviev s soul to the end
of his
days
. . . and this desire lives on in the hearts of
many
true believers."
f
Golovine,
who
sympathized
with
Soloviev,
stated in
1910
that towards the end of his life he
possibly approxi
mated to the liberal Protestants. As sole
proof
of this
statement,
Golovine
quotes
a remark made
by
Soloviev
concerning
Harnack s work on the
dogmas
of
Christianity.
He asked:
"
Which stands nearer to
God,
the man
who,
without
believing
in
Him,
keeps
His
commandments,
or
the man whose faith is
orthodox,
but whose conduct
SOLOVIEV
AS THEOLOGIAN
231
him best did not
perceive
the full riches of his
soul and his intense zeal;
nor did
they appreciate
the Christian ambition
underlying
his
patriotism,
and the
hopes
for his
country
that formed
part
of
his faith.
Although
he suffered from his friends failure
to understand him,
he
accepted
it with
humility.
His
perpetual
self-sacrifice
was due to the same
motives as his
prudence
with
regard
to the censor
;
at the cost of his own
suffering,
he
hoped
to
purchase
the
right
to
proclaim
to his friends and to the world
at
large
as much as
they
could bear of absolute
truth.
Therefore
by preserving
the influence that his
great qualities gave
him, he was able to
uplift
many
souls and
prepare
them for further
progress.
The
grain
of
wheat,
which in loneliness and
obscurity
dies under the
earth,
produces,
when winter is
over,
a
goodly
harvest.
It now remains for us to examine more
minutely
what this hidden treasure
was,
and when we
study
Soloviev on the ascetical side of his
character,
we
shall understand
his
humility
and
goodness
more
fully.
reveals his
contempt
for God s law ?" This criticism
would
apply
to Catholics
gather
than members of the
Orthodox Church,
and the
parable
of the two
brothers,
to
which it
alludes,
contains
nothing
in
support
of Protestant
dogma.
Somewhat further on in his
Souvenirs,
Golovine
expresses
his
regret
that Soloviev never admitted
"
the
fundamental
legitimacy
of the three
apostolic religions."
This
regret explains
Golovine s
previous
remark.
CHAPTER XI
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
SOLOVIEV S ascetical
teaching,
like the rest of his
work,
bears the
impress
of his
genius,
and,
on the
other
hand,
his
lofty
intellect enhances in a remark
able
degree
his austere asceticism. The con
scientious
loyalty
that
impelled
him to direct all
his actions towards what is
good,
is a
testimony
to his
virtues,
and renders
intelligible
his continual
advance from one truth to another. His outward
appearance betrayed
his ardent zeal for
goodness.
In
1886,
when he was
thirty-three years
of
age,
a
woman took him for the famous Father
John
of
Cronstadt,
whom the Russians venerated as a
perfect type
of
sanctity. Eight
months
later,
on
October
12, 1886,
Mgr. Strossmayer,.
in
writing
to
Cardinal
Vannutelli,
then
Papal
Nuncio at
.Vienna,
said: Soloviev anima
Candida,
pia
ac vere sancta est.
Viscount de
Vogue
said that his soul
lighted up
his
face,
so that it resembled
Christ,
as
depicted
by
Slav
monks,
Christ
loving, contemplating,
and
suffering.
Professor
Sikorsky,
who used to attend
Soloviev s
lectures,
delights
to recall the
personal
influence that he exerted over his
students,
232
SOLOVIEVS ASCETICISM
233
"his
spiritualized
body,
and the
purity
of his
face."
All who remember
Soloviev,
both Slavs and
Western
Europeans,
single
out his
goodness
as his
most
prominent
characteristic.
From the
pre
ceding chapters
it will be clear that this
goodness
was free from cowardice and all
tendency
to com
promise.
Let us examine it on its
positive
side.
Soloviev was a
philologist
and a
poet,
a scholar
and an
artist,
an
historian,
a
philosopher
and a
theologian.
He was
capable
of
dealing
with
very
various
subjects
in a
masterly
manner,
bringing
them
into
harmony,
and
arranging
them in
order,
so as
to be subordinate to his idea of the
Kingdom
of
God in the world. His
intellect,
great
as it
was,
did not
surpass
his
goodness
of heart. Of course
his
thoughts
caused
great
excitement
in
Russia;
they
were those of a
precursor,
standing
alone and
exposed
to attacks from two
camps.
The Liberals
would have welcomed him as a
champion
of
reform,
and have valued
highly
his
knowledge
of Western
affairs,
if
only
he could have
denied,
eliminated,
or
at least
concealed,
his Christian convictions. He
insisted
that,
without true
religion,
real
progress
was
impossible,
and therefore
all human
progress
has its
origin
and raison d
etre,
its
perpetual
stimulus
and its final end in and
through Christianity
and
this
Christianity
was
promised, prepared,
first
revealed and then
slowly
realized,
so that it is at
once
complete
and
progressive.
Such views were
unpardonable
in the
opinion
of the
Liberals,
and
234
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
the
Slavophile
party regarded
them with
equal
disfavour.
Soloviev s
fearless belief
ought
to have satisfied
these official
champions
of the faith
;
but he refused
to
identify
Church and
country;
he would not allow
that the Slavs alone were
predestined
to salvation
;
he
protested
against
every
kind of exclusivism and
denounced all that
savoured of the idea: "No
salvation
apart
from Slavism." This was
enough
to
bring
down
anathemas
upon
him;
the
"genuine
Russians,"
though
still
isolated,
already
existed,
and
they
felt bound to abuse Soloviev.
His
goodness, however,
used to disarm his ad
versaries,
and as a
rule,
whenever
they
came into
contact with
him,
it forced them to esteem him and
won their
sympathy.
He was not much over
twenty
when he
began
to lecture on
philosophy,
and his
hearers,
both in
Petrograd
and
Moscow,
without
exception
adopted
his views on
Positivism;
Pro
fessor
Wedensky says
that there was not one left
"
unconverted."
Professor
Koni,
in his discourse
before the
Academy
of
Science,
states the facts with
greater precision.
When Soloviev s lectures on
theandrism were announced at the
University
of
Petrograd,
there was an immense
agitation among
the students of all the faculties.
"
Who,"
they
asked,
"
is this
insolent fellow who dares to
bring religion
into the
sanctuary
of
science,
and darkness into the
abode of
light
?" A
plot
was set on
foot,
and there
was to be such an
uproar,
that the first lecture
would be the
only
one of the course. All the students
were invited to
attend,
and when the
appointed
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
235
day
arrived,
the faculties of
Science,
Arts and Law
assembled in full force.
The
youthful professor
had to face this
huge,
noisy
audience,
which refused to
give
him the
ordinary
welcome. All
eyes
were fixed on
him,
but
something
in his
expression
even then
inspired
respect,
and
although
some
ringleaders
tried to
make a
disturbance,
very
few followed
them,
for
the audience as a whole was fascinated
by
the
young
lecturer,
who
began
to
speak
of the Christian
ideal,
of human
greatness
and of God s love for
man. His
powerful
voice,
deep
and well
modulated,
rang
out amidst a
religious
silence,
as he did
homage
to
Christ,
speaking
of Him as the sole
principle
capable
of
establishing
the
reign
of true
brotherly
love,
and
imploring
his hearers to allow them
selves to be rendered divine
by
Him.
Suddenly
applause
broke
out,
and it was unanimous. The
students of all the faculties
joined
in
acclaiming
the man whom
they
had come to
vilify,
and thence
forth
they thronged
to his
lectures,
eager
to
give
voice to their admiration. It would be useless to
enlarge upon
this
incident;
those who have
any
experience
of
University
life will be able to
appreciate
it.
Influence such as this is far more than mere
intellectual
prestige.
Students are often
unwilling,
especially
in
Russia,
to relish
any pious
exhortations
on the
part
of a
professor,
and abstract
arguments
alone would never make them
accept
an
unexpected
and austere form of
religious philosophy.
The
hearts of
Slavs,
perhaps
more than of other
men,
236
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
demand
something beyond
intellectual
reasoning,
and we
may
be sure that the
young professor,
who
converted Russian students of his own
age,
was
no
ordinary
man,
but one
possessed
of unusual
powers
of affection and devotion. His
goodness
and
generosity
made him
sympathize
with all
in
distress,
and his efforts to relieve
poverty
often
reduced him to extreme want. Tavernier writes
(Art.
Cit.,
p. 16):
"
I have often seen him cross the
street,
at the risk of
being
run over
(for
he was
very
short-sighted),
in order to
give
alms to
beggars,
whose
presence
he felt rather than saw. He used
even to run after them to
give
them
gold
and silver
coins. His friends scolded him without
rousing
his
anger,
but
they
did not succeed in
curing
him,
and
his
unfailing
kindness was notorious both in Petro-
grad
and Moscow." His
almsgiving
was
ruining
him,
but he would not abandon the
custom,
and he
even
begged money
for the
poor
from his
friends,
and taxed his
ingenuity
to discover fresh resources.
One
year
when food was
particularly costly,
he
thought
that a dinner
every day
was
perhaps
a mere
matter of
habit,
and that if he himself dined
only
every
other
day,
he could enable some
poor
man to
do the same.
His
generosity
was so lavish that
"
he used to
give away
the
money
that he had earned
by working
day
and
night
for two or three months. After an
almost incredible amount of work he would be fresh
and
keen, and,
whilst
living
on tea and
vegetables,
he
was
engaged simultaneously
on the
composition
of
several
poetical
works and of articles for reviews."
SOLOVIEV
S ASCETICISM
237
He felt
pity
for
starving
bodies,
and still more
for
souls,
that
ought
to be fed on truth and love
of God but who was to
give
them this food ?
This
pity
for the souls of men
inspired
all Soloviev s
literary activity.
He knew that all around
him
were hearts and
minds
hungering
for the
things
of
God,
and no one seemed to understand
their
need. These minds,
rebellious
against dogma,
and
these hearts,
submissive
to no
law,
nevertheless
receive
innumerable
graces
from
God,
although they
are unaware
of them.
Their
perpetual
dream and
aspiration
is to live and know,
to
possess
and
enjoy.
Who will make them understand
their own dream
?
Who will tell them:
"
Your inclinations
and am
bitions come
from God and are the
appeals
that in
His
goodness
He makes
from afar.
Far from
being
condemned
by
God,
they
express
in an
imperfect
manner His
designs upon you.
Do
you
wish to
raise
yourselves
above
the level of
humanity
?
Christ came
down to fill
you
with this desire to
rise,
to inflame
your
hearts,
and to
give you
an
example
and the means
of
realizing your
aspirations.
Do
you
aim at
being gods
? There is
nothing
bad in this.
It would be a sin to
try
to
put
man in God s
place,
or to
drag
God down
to man s
level,
or to idolize
yourselves,
whilst
you
forget
God or subordinate
Him to
your
human
nature.
But if what
you
wish
is to be lifted
up
to
God,
and united to
Him,
so
that He
may
be in
you,
and
you
in Him
;
if
you
are
*
Soloviev saw
clearly
the evil that Nietzsche s
teaching
was
likely
to cause
in Russia,
and alluded to it in several
of his works.
238
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
tempted
to
despair,
because,
being eager
to share
in the divine
nature,
you
can but catch a
glimpse
of it at an infinite
distance,
then take
courage.
The
Father,
Son and
Holy
Ghost are
calling you
to soar aloft to them
;
they
are
ready
to come down
to
you
and take
up
their abode in
your
soul. In
return for
your good
will,
they promise you
an
incalculable
reward,
a
mysterious
transformation,
invisible
at
first,
but afterwards radiant with
glory;
and when
you
are united with and assimilated to
God,
He will make
you
divine. Such is the faith
of
Christianity
and the revelation
given
to the world
by
Christ,
the Son of God."
Who was to
say
these
things
to the Slavs ?
They
were
starving
for the
truth,
and
Soloviev,
taking
to himself the words Misercor
super
turbam,
for
the sake of souls entered
upon
his formidable
struggle
with the
philosophical
and
theological
errors current in Russia.
His learned and
loyal explanations,
and his
discussions,
carried on
invariably
in a
kindly spirit,
show that his
object
in view was to win over the
opponent,
whose errors he was
refuting,
and to save
his soul. He wrote therefore without
any
bitterness,
party spirit,
or narrow exclusivism. On the con
trary
he took
pains,
in
dealing
with
any
error,
to
distinguish
it from the truth that accredited it.
Then he
proceeded
to add to and elucidate this
truth,
taking
a
comprehensive
view of
it,
for he
knew well that the
great enemy
of truth is a
partial
and one-sided
opinion.
He avoided all
personal polemics, although
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
239
occasionally
he had to
give
a direct answer to
certain attacks. When this was
necessary,
he in
variably displayed
the
greatest
moderation,
and
yet
once he wished to accuse himself
publicly
of
having needlessly
mentioned some of his critics
by
name.
His extreme reserve was not due to cowardice
or fear of attacks
;
it
proceeded
from his
respect
for
the souls and intentions of
men,
and it
was,
more
over,
his most successful
stratagem.
A statement
of
truth,
clear and
convincing,
but at the same
time most
loyal
and
charitable,
could not fail to be
a most effectual refutation of error. Soloviev s
tactics are most
easily
traced in his
Justification of
Good
;
this
work,
which is one of the most
important,
is aimed
throughout against
the encroachments
of
Tolstoism,
and
yet
Tolstoi s name does not occur
once in the whole book.
No one could take offence at one who showed
such
quiet
calm in
argument.
He was in no
danger
of
being
misunderstood and he
displayed
no trace
of
jealousy
or bitterness.* Soloviev s
opponents
were forced to
acknowledge
that he
respected
them
and wished to do them
good,
and most of his readers
are fascinated
by
the
peaceful spirit
of his
writings.
This
spirit, being
united with
vigour
of
thought
and
style,
won for Soloviev
respect
and
admiration,
and
gained
him
many
friends.
Gradually
the attacks
upon
him
ceased,
and his enemies were
put
to
silence,
*
Tolstoi did not hesitate to commend his
proteges
to
Soloviev,
who tried in
every way
to serve Tolstoi and had
hopes
of
making
him see the
light.
240
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
and towards the close of his life learned academies
and the salons of the
highest
aristocracy, political
assemblies
and the embassies
showered invitations
upon
him. He seemed to be on the
way
towards
enjoying
the favour of the
Imperial
Court and the
applause
of the
populace,
when death overtook him
unexpectedly
at the house of his friend Prince
Troubetzko
i,
at the
age
of
forty-seven.
On his deathbed
he murmured:
"
The service of
the Lord is
hard,"
and his
host,
who
caught
these
words,
adds:
"
The whole of Soloviev s life was an
attempt
to
justify
his
faith,
and to facilitate the
action
of the Good in which he believed.
He de
voted himself
wholly
to his life-work,
never
pausing
to take
breath,
never
sparing
himself,
but
exhausting
himself
by
his zeal to fulfil what he
regarded
as his
mission.
His life was that of a combatant,
who had
already
overcome his own nature and lower in
clinations.
This life was
assuredly
not
easy;
but
amidst his labours his
spirit
never
flagged,
because
he had
kept
his heart
pure
and his soul undaunted.
No sense of fear troubled
him,
and his
courage
was
the
source
of his
gaiety
and
happiness,
which are
the unmistakable
sign
and
privilege
of
genuine
Christianity."
These words are an honour
both to
the writer and to his
friend,
and
they
show us to
what
heights
Soloviev had attained
by way
of
suffering.
His sensitiveness
was extreme
and his
charity
most delicate,
so that his refined soul
suffered
keenly
from
things
that coarser
natures
would
hardly
have felt. Princess
X.
X.,
who,
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
241
both from her
family
traditions and as a
convert,
had unusual
opportunities
of
knowing
Soloviev,
said that he needed affection and kindness. In
stead of
these, however,
he received for
years
nothing
but abuse and
calumny,
and he often suffered
acutely
from attacks made
upon
him;
in
fact,
it is
possible
that
grief
hastened his
death,
although
he
never
displayed any anger
or
indignation.
His
soul was sanctified
by suffering
endured and offered
up
for the salvation of his beloved
country.
Mgr. Strossmayer,
who was
intimately acquainted
with Soloviev s
aspirations
and
sorrows,
bears
witness to this sanctification. We have
already
quoted
his letter to Cardinal
Vannutelli,
Papal
Nuncio at
Vienna,
in which he
speaks
of Soloviev
as anima
Candida,
pia
ac vere sancta. At the same
time he announces that several
important
works
were in course of
preparation,
and that a
pilgrimage
ad limina was in
contemplation.
He writes:
"
Soloviev et
ego
condiximus ut Romae
tempore
sacerdotalis iubilaei summi et
gloriosissimi
Pontificis
nostri
conveniamus,
ut
pro
consiliis et intentionibus
nostris lumen et benedictionem
efflagitemus."
When the
Bishop
carried out his
design
in
1888,
he wrote to Cardinal
Rampolla, commending
to him
"
Vladimir
Soloviev,
a man as learned as he is
pious,"
and
worthy
to receive from the
Holy
Father,
at a
private
audience,
a
very special blessing upon
his
apostolate
in Russia.
In another less formal
correspondence, Mgr.
Strossmayer spoke
with less
reserve,
and what
he
says
of his friend s
sufferings
will
help
us to
16
242
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
appreciate
more
fully
Soloviev s moral
triumph,
to which Prince Troubetzkoi s words
already quoted
bear witness. The old
Bishop, writing
to Father
Pierling,
on March
24, 1890, says:
"We must
support
and
encourage
our friend Soloviev all the
more because he has a natural
tendency
to melan
choly,
I
might
almost
say,
to
despair.
Let us love
him,
encourage
him,
and take him to our hearts.
This is what I have done
myself
as
far as
my strength
permits.
I shall
shortly
write
something
in our
papers
on
his
work La Russie et I
Eglise
Universelle,
and I shall
praise
him as he
deserves,
to
encourage
him."
Again,
on
April
6,
1890,
he writes:
"
Pardon
my
bluntness with
regard
to our
good, pious
Soloviev.
He
is,
as
you rightly
remark,
somewhat inclined to
sadness and
melancholy.
Let us lift him
up
and
encourage
him,
for he most
thoroughly
deserves
it,
but let us leave him his innate
peculiarities.
He seems to me to be a
good
instrument in the hands
of Providence. Whilst we
preach charity
and
peace,
and the reunion of the two
Churches,
let us
always
remain in
perfect charity
and
agreement.
I am
indeed
delighted
to find the same
spirit
in
your
estimable letters."
These occasional weaknesses in Soloviev s char
acter did not cause
Strossmayer
to
modify
his first
opinion:
"
Our
good
Soloviev is an ascetic and
truly
holy
man." On Christmas
Day, 1896,
Soloviev,
who was then at Tsarskoe
Selo,
and
very
ill,
tele
graphed
to the
Bishop,
as he was accustomed to
do
on
great
festivals,
to offer him his
good
wishes.
SOLOVIEV S
ASCETICISM
243
Strossmayer replied
by telegram:
"Thanks for
congratulations.
Your life and
health are
precious
to
the
Church and the nation. Live
therefore,
we are all
praying
for
you.
I bless
you
with all
my
heart,
and
hope
that
your
health will soon be
completely
restored."
Strossmayer
was
quite sincere,
he
attached the
greatest
importance
to his
friend s
health and life.
Being
himself full of
hope
that better
days
were in
store for
Russians with
Catholic
aspirations,
he
desired Soloviev to witness this
golden
age.
In the
letter
already quoted,
that he
addressed to
Cardinal
Vannutelli,
he
says:
"
In hisce
horrendis
calamitati-
bus . . .
indubium est animas
Candidas et vere
pias
divino
quodam
impulsu
ad
unitatem
tendere.
Huius
rei
testimonium
adnecto . . .
quo
evidens
lit,
in
ipsa
quoque
ecclesia
slavica
orthodoxa
pro
unione
promovenda
et
divinam
victimam, aeternum omnis
caritatis,
concordiae et
unitatis
pretium,
et
pignus,
cottidie
offerri,
et
preces
assiduas
hoc
sancto line
ad Deum
optimum
maximum fundi."
In his
humility
the
venerable old
man
declared
himself
unworthy
to see the
day
break,
when so
many
Masses would
obtain
unity
among Christians,
but others
seemed to him
worthy
to
behold its
splendour.
He writes:
"
Ego ipse
ceu
peccator
vix
mereor ut
auroram
adminus
laetissimae
huiusmodi
diei
conspiciam;
ast
Soloviev et
principissa
Volkonski et alias
animse
piae
et sanctae
merebuntur
certe,
ut
videant,
si
non lucem
plenam,
adminus
stellam
matutinam
huius
laetissimae
lucis,
quam
Pater
aeternus in
con-
244
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
solationem eorum,
qui
in
pessimis
adiunctis
non
desperabant,
sed vires suas ad unionem
inpendebant,
in sua tenet
potestate."
The
Bishop
s
hope
was not
fulfilled,
and
of the
two friends the
younger
died
first,
before
the
"
morning
star
"
appeared
on the horizon.
In his
youth
Soloviev had written
some verses
foretelling
the loneliness of his
religious
life,
and his
words
proved
prophetic;
they may
be
compared
with
Newman
s
"
Lead,
Kindly
Light,"
written
on his return
journey
from
Sicily.
Soloviev s
poem
may
be rendered
thus:
"
In
the
dim
morning light
I advanced
with timid
step
towards
the
enchanting, mysterious
shores.
The
first flush
of dawn
was
driving away
the last
linger
ing
stars;
my
dreams
still fluttered
about
me,
and
my
soul,
entangled
among
them,
was
praying-
praying
to unknown
gods.
In broad
daylight
I
am
walking, lonely
as
ever,
through
an
unexplored
country.
The mist has vanished,
and before
me
I behold
clearly
the
steep path
leading
to the still
distant
mountain
;
how far off is all of which
I have
dreamt
! I shall
go
on till
nightfall,
walking
fear
lessly
towards
the desired
country,
where,
high up
on the mountain,
in the
light
of new stars and
spark
ling
flames
of
triumph,
the
temple
stands
resplendent,
the
temple promised
to and
awaiting
me."
This
promised
temple
is of course the
glory
of
the
universal
Church.
Soloviev
longed
to see it
ever
since he had shaken off the
gloom
that over
shadowed
his faith as a
child,
for thenceforth
he
never
doubted God,
or Divine Providence,
or the
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM 245
work of
redemption.
He had
sought
new
light
regarding
God s
designs
in the
world;
a mist hid
them for a
time, and,
worn out
by long-continued
anguish
of
mind,
he cried
passionately:
"
My
God,
Christ
Jesus,
show me
Thy
work on
earth,
show me
Thy
Church . . . where is
Thy
Church ?"
At
length
the mist
dispersed,
and the
temple
promised
to those who seek was revealed
;
it was the
universal Church in the
glory
of her
catholicity.
From that
day
onward Soloviev was unwearied
in
pointing
out to his brethren the
City
of
God,
set
on a hill. We have
already quoted
from the
preface
of his
Justification of
Good,
in which he
says:
"
The choice was
always
difficult between the various
theories on the aim and
object
of
life,
and it is still
more difficult in the
present
state of human know
ledge.
Those fortunate
persons
who have
already
discovered for themselves
a sure and definite
solution of the
problem
are bound to convince others
of its truth. When the mind has
triumphed
over
its own
doubts,
the heart cannot remain indifferent
to the errors of others." These others for a
long
time seemed unable to see or hear what Soloviev
meant. Even the most
sympathetic
often failed to
understand
him,
and at the same time the
rigorous
censorship
forced him to exercise
great prudence.
After the solemn
professions
of faith that he had
necessarily published
abroad,
his views had to be
expressed
with
great
discretion,
if their
publication
were not to be
altogether
forbidden in Russia.
When Soloviev
died,
he had reason to fear that
no
one had followed him to the threshold of the
246
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
temple,
but his works continued to
point
the
way
thither,
and thus
light
has
already
shone into the
minds,
and love has warmed the hearts of
many
people.
Russians are now
thinking
over the Master s
solemn
prayer:
ut omnes unum
sint,
and
comparing
universalism with
Slavism;
and as their faith
grows,
so do their
patriotic
ambitions soar to
greater
heights. Approach
to the
holy
mountain is no
longer
forbidden;
even now some are brave
enough
to
attempt
the
ascent,
and the
eyes
of multitudes
arc fixed
upon
them. . . . Who knows what
Pusey might
have
undertaken,
or Newman accom
plished,
in a Church with a valid
hierarchy
? Who
then can foresee what the influence of the
Russian Newman
may
effect in the future
among
his brethren ?
By way
of illustration we
may
mention two
facts
showing,
no
doubt,
the difference of
opinion
that
prevails
in
Russia,
and also the esteem in which
Soloviev is held.
Early
in
April, 1906,
there
appeared
at Kiev the first number of a
daily paper
called Narod
(The People).
The editor announced
that his
programme
was to
spread
abroad Soloviev s
ideas
concerning
universal
Christianity.
"
Like
him,
we desire
religious society
to be
international,
and
Christianity
to
control,
not
only private
life,
but also the whole domain of social relations."
The method
suggested
was crude and
questionable,
but the
design
was admirable
:
"
To
judge
all
subjects,
political
and
economic,
philosophical
and
religious,
literary
and
artistic,
from the Christian
standpoint."
The
editors of the
paper,
S. N.
Boulgakov,
pro-
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
247
fessor at the
University,
and A. S.
Voljsky
were
Orthodox;
they
declared that the
newspaper,
though published
in a
provincial
town,
would not be
local in
spirit
:
"
We aim at
interesting
the whole of
Russia,
and in
gaining sympathy beyond
the
frontiers of
neighbouring
nations for our
publication
and Soloviev s ideas." The censor was on the
alert,
and in
spite
of the
feeling
of
liberty,
that even then
was
making
itself
perceptible,
the
paper
was
sup
pressed,
when
only
five numbers had
appeared.
The
Tserkovny
Vestnik
(Ecclesiastical Messenger)
of
April
20,
1906,
did not hesitate to
say
that its
suppression
was much to be
regretted.
Just
at the same
time,
by
a
strange
coincidence,
the official
Commission,
that for six
years
had been
arranging
for the convocation of a Universal Council
of all
Russia,
turned its attention to Soloviev.
M. Souvorov
quoted
his
eminently
Christian
opinions
on the
mystical body
of
Christ,
and on the Church
as the
City
of
God,
described
by
St.
Augustine.
These
inquiries
cast
light upon
Soloviev s dominant
idea : Our
Lord,
the Son of
God,
desired all Christians
to form one
body,
multi unum
corpus,
to be united
into one sole Church. On this
rock,
He
said,
I will build
my
Church.
Christianity ought
to be
known
by
this
sign
its incessant effort to form a
Catholic
temple.
Did Soloviev himself ever enter that
temple
?
On the tenth
anniversary
of his death this
question
was
keenly
discussed. We can
only say
what we
know on the
subject.
He had
long
meditated
upon
St. Paul s words:
248
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
"
I
wished
myself
to be an anathema from
Christ,
for
my
brethren,
who are
my
kinsmen
according
to
the flesh." Solovie
v, too,
could
say
with
perfect
honesty:
"
I
speak
the truth in
Christ;
I lie
not,
my
conscience
bearing
me witness in the
Holy
Ghost,
that I have
great
sadness and continual sorrow in
my
heart
"
(Rom,
ix.
1-3).
One
day
Viscount
de
Vogue*
overheard the
following
conversation:
"
But what about
your
own salvation ?"
"
What
does
my
own salvation matter ? I must think of
the common welfare of
my
brethren."
Optabam
enim
ego ipse
anathema esse a Christo
pro fratribus
meis
(De Vogii6,
Sous I
Horizon,
p. 22).
Personal fear had no
weight
with Solovie
v;
in
the course of the conversation to which allusion has
just
been
made,
he was warned that he would
certainly
be arrested and
deported,
if he returned
to Russia from Paris. He was even told that orders
had been issued to intern him in a
monastery
at
Archangel. Vogue"
writes:
"
We
urged
him to
put
off his
departure,
but he said:
No,
if I want
my
ideas to
spread,
must I not
go
and bear witness to
them ?
He was ever
ready
to bear witness to
the truth at
any
cost.
The same
opinion
of Soloviev is
expressed
also
by
a Russian
convert,
a man of exalted
rank,
and
full of
courage,
a
high
sense of honour and faith.
Leontius Pavlovitch de Nicolai was born in 1820
and died in
1891.
Before his conversion he dis
tinguished
himself
during
the Caucasian
War,
when he commanded the
Kabardinsky regiment
against
Schamyl.
As
aide-de-camp
to Alexander
II.,
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM 249
he
gained
the
Emperor
s
friendship,
and then he
sacrificed his whole
career,
was received
into the
Catholic
Church,
and became a
priest
and a Car
thusian,
in order to follow the truth and cross of
Christ in a life of
great austerity.
On
January
3,
1890,
he wrote from the Grande Chartreuse
as
follows:
"
I well understand the reasons
why
Solo-
viev has
practised
a kind of
reserve,
which he
imposed
upon
himself in the interest of the mission that he
has to
accomplish,
and that
has,
no
doubt,
been
assigned
to him
by
the Most
High.
For the sake of
his
cause,
he must
cling
to the Oriental
rite,
for if
he
adopted
the Roman
rite,
he would cut the
ground
from under his feet in
Russia,
and all his work
would be frustrated.
... I used to
hope
that he
would take some
steps
to render his attitude
regular
with reference to the
Holy
See,
in order to
put
an
end to
every
kind of doubt. I look
upon
the
pre
sentation of his book to the.
Holy
Father
by Mgr.
Strossmayer
as a first
step
in this direction.
It
was,
I
think,
a
profession
of
faith,
frank and at the
same time
diplomatic,
considering
the
delicacy
of
his
position,
and his
obligation
to have recourse
to
many expedients
in order to avoid
prejudice
and
persecution
at home and from the whole bureau
cratic
tribe,
with Pobedonostsev at its head. .
". . . He was well advised to
go
back to
Russia,
and not to listen to the voice of human
prudence,
that
sought
to dissuade him. His bold action must
certainly
have
pleased
the
Emperor
and all men of
courage,
and no doubt increased his
prestige.
. . .
"
It would be a
grand thing
if he could
definitely
2
5o VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
raise the
question
of
reunion between the Churches.
I
have a firm
conviction,
which is
shared
by
Soloviev,
that
Russia would then be called to
play
a
provi
dential
part
either in the East or the West. . . .
"
I
maintain,
and
always
shall
maintain,
that the
salvation and
greatness
of
Russia
depend entirely
upon
the
preservation
of a
religious spirit among
the
masses
(for
the
so-called
higher
classes are
already corrupt),
and this
spirit
cannot be
preserved
except
by
the
Church,
which must be such as Christ
desires,
in union with the universal Church and her
supreme
head. . . .
Soloviev
understands all this
perfectly,
and is
hovering
aloft,
soaring
like an
eagle.
I
offer
him true
admiration and
genuine
sympathy.
. .
May
God bless his work !"
These
passages explain
why
no
thought
of Latini-
zation ever
entered Soloviev s
mind;
it would have
seemed to him a breach of
faith towards his
personal
mission,
and an act of
disobedience to the will of
the
Popes,
who from the earliest
period
down to the
present
day
have
always upheld
the lawful and
sacred
character of the Oriental rites.
They
even
forbade
any change
of ritual to be
proposed.
Soloviev
intended to be a member of the universal
Roman
Catholic
Church,
but not a Latin
member,
for in his letter on the union of the Churches he
wrote:
"
It is the Church of
Rome,
not the Latin
Church,
that is the mater et
magistra
omnium
Ecclesiarum
;
it is the
Bishop
of
Rome,
and not the
Western
patriarch,
who
speaks
infallibly
ex
cathedra,
and we
ought
not to
forget
that there was a time
when the
Bishops
of Rome were Greeks."
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
251
On the other
hand,
the
persecution
organized
by
the Russian
bureaucracy
had
destroyed
all the
branches in
Russia, which,
though
not
Latin,
were
in visible union with the
great
Roman
trunk,
and
they
were
absolutely prevented
from
shooting
out
again.
This intolerance made it
impossible
for
Soloviev to
bring
his
practice
of
religion
into con
formity
with his
profession
of faith
; and, accordingly,
he
urged again
and
again
his entreaties
that the
State should
guarantee liberty
to use the Oriental
rites,
in the case of Christian communities
not
subject
to the
Holy Synod.
This
permission
was
partially granted by
laws enacted in
1904
and
1905,
but Soloviev had then been dead some
years.
If
he ever took the decisive
step
of
seeking
admission
to the Catholic
Church,
he must
necessarily
have
done so
secretly.
His friends knew
nothing beyond
the fact that
this
man,
so full of
faith,
so
irreproachable
in his
life,
so
good, pious,
and
austere,
had ceased
to re
ceive the sacraments of the Orthodox Church.
In
1892, during
a serious
illness,
he received them
for
the last time from Father Orlov. He never
ap
proached
them
again,
and secret instructions
were
given
to the
clergy
to refuse communion
to him as
a
"
suspect."
Those who were aware of Soloviev
s enthusiastic
reverence and love for the
Holy
Eucharist,
knew
that there was some
painful mystery
on the
subject,
but were in the dark as to its nature.
It
was,
how
ever,
revealed on the tenth
anniversary
of Soloviev
s
death,
when the
following
facts were disclosed,
252
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
Nicolas
Tolstoi,
a
priest
ordained in the Estab
lished Church of
Russia,
but reconciled in
1893
to
the Catholic
Church,
was
continuing
his
ministry
according
to the ancient Slav rite of the East.*
The fact that from time to time this
priest
was
allowed to
stay
in
Russia,
removed the last obstacle
in Soloviev s
way,
and
"
he who had
long preached
union with Rome
among
his
fellow-countrymen
now
preached
it also
by
his
example,
and made
his
complete
submission to the Roman Church in
the
presence
of several
witnesses,
in the
Chapel
of
Our
Lady
of Lourdes at Moscow on
February
18,
1896, being
the second
Sunday
in
Lent."f
Some Russian
periodicals,
such as the
Tserkov,
the Rousskoie Slovo and the Sovremennoie
Slovo,
published particulars rendering
this statement more
complete.
There was no formal
abjuration,
for it
was considered
unnecessary.
Soloviev
solemnly
read aloud his
profession
of
faith,
and added the
declaration to which we have
already
referred:
"
As a member of the true and venerable Orthodox
Oriental or Greco-Russian
Church,
which
speaks
not
through
an anticanonical
synod,
nor
through
the
agents
of the secular
power
... I
recognize
as the
supreme judge
in matters of
religion
. . .
the
apostle
Peter,
who lives still in his
successors,
*
On November
13, 1910,
the Church of San Lorenzo di
Monti in
Rome,
set
apart
for Catholics
using
this
rite,
was
solemnly
dedicated with
pontifical
Mass. The
priest
in
charge,
Father
Verighine,
is a
Russian,
very loyal
to the
ancient Slav
liturgy.
t
Article
by
Nicolas Tolstoi in the
Univers,
September
9,
1910,
SOLOVIEV
S ASCETICISM
253
and who
did not hear in vain our Lord s words
"
(cf. P-
213).
This formula,
which Soloviev
printed
in
1889,
defines
precisely
what he meant
by saying:
belong
to the true Orthodox Church;
it is in order
to
profess
our traditional
Orthodoxy
in all its
fulness, that,
without
being
a
Latin,
I
recognize
Rome as the centre of the whole of Christendom."
The witnesses
of this
approximation
of
"
the
Russia of the future
"
to Rome were some members
of Father Tolstoi
s
family,
his servants
and a few
well-known
inhabitants
of
Petrograd
and
Moscow.
On the
following day
Tolstoi was arrested,
but the
authorities
connived
at his
escape,
and a few
days
afterwards
he was in
Rome,
having gone
thither
to offer to the
Holy
Father the
respectful
homage
of his new
spiritual
son. At least Soloviev believed
this to be the reason
of his
journey,
and
thought
that Leo
XIII.
approved
of what had taken
place.
It is said that several
of Soloviev s
admirers,
under the influence
of his works and
example,
were
not contented
with
expanding
their
own
private
religion
until
it attained to
catholicity
of faith and
charity,
but
actually petitioned
Rome to
give
them
Soloviev as their first
Bishop. They
were
over-hasty
in their action.
Leo
XIII.,
who raised
Newman
to
the
dignity
of
Cardinal, would,
it is
said,
have sanc
tioned their
choice,
but he
put
off the execution
of
this
plan
to a more favourable moment,
and before
that moment arrived,
Vladimir
Serguievitch
Soloviev
had
died,
being
still a
layman.
He fell ill
suddenly
whilst
travelling,
and as he was at Ouskoie,
in a
254
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
country
house
belonging
to Prince Troubetzkoi,
the
only priest
within reach was the Orthodox
village priest,
S. A. Bielaiev. In such a case
every
Catholic is entitled and almost bound to ask for
absolution and the
viaticum,
and
Soloviev,
having
done
so,
and
being purified by
this last
gift
of
God,
died and retracted
nothing
that he had
taught.*
Extremists on both sides
express very
contra
dictory opinions regarding
Soloviev s
death,
and
both are
equally
mistaken. Those who talk of a
return to the official Church have no
ground
for
their
joy,
nor have those who
charge
this
"
Catholic
Bishop
"
with
hypocrisy any
reason for their
anger.
In
February, 1911,
a notice of Soloviev
appeared
in the
Messager Historique, published
at
Petrograd.
The
writer,
M.
Gnedine,
was
acquainted
with
Vladimir Soloviev and his elder brother Vsevolod
between
1870
and 1880. He used to read his works
aloud to
them,
and the two brothers listened with
enthusiastic admiration. He met them
again
in
the
publishing
offices of the chief Russian
periodicals,
but
subsequently
lost
sight
of them. He tells us
that one
day
he was
suddenly
addressed
by
Vsevolod,
who said:
"
I am in
great
distress.
My
brother
*
N.
Kolossof,
an Orthodox
priest,
states that at the end
of
1910
Soloviev s confessor in the
Sokolny Hospital
made
the
following
statement:
"
Soloviev told me
that,
some
years previously,
his last Orthodox confessor had refused
him absolution for a
point
of
dogma,
but he did not tell me
what it was." The
dying
man added that the refusal had
been
quite j
ustifiable. There is no need to discuss this state
ment;
it
only
shows that
Soloviev,
though
he renounced
his
sins,
retracted none of his
theological
conclusions.
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
255
has
openly
seceded to
Catholicism,
in order to re
ceive the
Eucharist,
that our Church withholds
from
him as a
punishment."
This conversation
was
reported
fifteen
years
after the events
mentioned,
and
only
six months after the
publication
of Tolstoi s
account of them. If it had ended
here,
we
might
think it
strange,
indiscreet and
imprudent,
but not
impossible,
since the statement was correct. But
what
follows seems almost incredible. Vsevolod
Soloviev is said to have added:
"
There is
something
worse than that. I
possess
a letter in which
my
brother is
offered the
priesthood;
this
proposal
emanated from
Rome,
but Vladimir s answer to it
was: I
cannot
accept
less than a Cardinal s hat.
The narrator
concludes
by saying
that Vsevolod
hurried
away,
after
remarking seriously:
"
He will
be a
Cardinal. Do not
forget my
words."
Undoubtedly
both Vsevolod and M. Gnedine
were much excited on that
day,
and their emotion
may
serve as an excuse for a
story
that is
altogether
a
mixture of
memory
and
imagination.
Gnedine s
general
tone is
by
no means favourable to Solovie
v,
and we cannot
regard
as
probable
either the
alleged
offer from Rome or the answer to it. Those who
know
anything
of the usual
procedure
of the
pon
tifical
Court,
and also those who ever came into
contact with
Soloviev,
will be amused at Vsevolod s
prophecy,
and will
feel
gratitude
to Gnedine for
having
added: "This
prophecy
was not fulfilled.
Soloviev was a
plain
Uniate at the time of his death."
Nicolas
Engelhardt
made fun of these extremists
in a
very gentle
way
in the Novoie Vremia of
August
256
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
21
(September
3), 1910.
He
says
that the calumnies
contained in these
"
yellow
pages
"
and diocesan
Bulletins will not
sully
the fame of one who
has
become more than a
Bishop
in
Russia,
since he is
for us
"
a kind of
Pope
in the universal domain
of
intellect and
thought."
Profound
thinkers,
like
Pertsov,
could not be astonished
if
Soloviev,
in
the
honesty
of his
soul,
brought
his
practice
and his
faith into
agreement.
Both in action and in
delay,
he listened
only
to the voice of his own
conscience,
and no selfish
arguments
or human
interests could influence him.
Every
detail in his
conduct was
inspired by
the one wish to
give
honour
to
God,
by
bringing
souls to Him
through
Christ.
In his
Counterfeits of
Christianity
he writes:
"
I am
not
founding
a
philosophical
school
of
my
own.
But as I see the
spread
of deformities
hostile to
Christianity,
I consider
it
my duty
to
reveal,
in the
fundamental
idea of the
Kingdom
of
God,
what
ought
to constitute
the fulness
of human life, individual,
social,
and
political
that life which Christ has
destined
to be
perfectly
united
to the
Godhead,
through
the
agency
of the
living
Church."
In a Russian
work
begun
about the
year
1882,
Soloviev shows
by
what
principles
he
was
guided
throughout
the rest
of his life. The
Religious
Foundations, or, according
to the third
edition,
The
Spiritual
Foundations
of Life,
reveals to some
extent
the
depth
of his
soul,
and a resum6 of this
work
will form a suitable
conclusion
to our
study
of
Soloviev
s character.
In it we shall find an answer
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
257
to various
questions
that the reader no doubt feels
inclined to ask
viz.,
With what intentions did he
direct all his
activity
to the
speculative
and
practical
mastery
of
integral
philosophy
? How did he
succeed in
utilizing
all his
intellectual,
moral and
religious
resources in such a wonderful
manner,
so as to
bring
them into
perfect harmony
?
By
what method did he
develop
himself in such a
remarkable
degree
?
The
preface begins
with a clear statement:
"
Reason and conscience show us that our mortal
life is bad and inconsistent." Instead of
accepting
pessimism,
as his teachers had
done, Soloviev,
being
then
twenty-nine years
of
age,
adds :
"
Reason
and conscience alike call for an
improvement
of
this life. To effect
this,
we must look
beyond
this
life
;
and to the believer faith reveals this
lever,
that
is
superior
to
life,
in
religion."
Thus the
spiritual
life assumes at least faith in
God,
and a conviction
that
"
religion ought
to
regenerate
and
sanctify
our life and unite it to the divine life. This is
primarily
the work of
God,
but it cannot be accom
plished
without our
co-operation."
However,
even as
believers,
"
we
generally
live
without God or in
opposition
to
Him,
heedless of
other men and slaves of our lower nature. . . .
Now true life
requires
us to
adopt quite
a
contrary
attitude we should aim at
voluntary
submission to
God,
at mutual union with others
and at the
subjugation
of nature. The first of
these aims is realized in
prayer,
the second in active
charity,
and the third
by controlling
our lower
17
258
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
impulses
and
passions
and so
attaining
to true
liberty."
Prayer, sympathy
with
others,
and control of the
lower desires are for the individual the three
fundamental elements in our relation to
God,
our
Lord and
Father,
the Lord and Father also of our
brethren,
and the Ruler and End of all material
creation.
The
performance
of our duties as individuals
will
naturally
result in
fidelity
to the collective
duties laid
upon
us as members of human
society.
"
Every thought
and
every
form of
philosophy
seeks
unity.
Now what
gives
the
world,
not
only
existence,
but also true
unity
is the
mighty, living,
and
personal power
of God. His active
unity
is
revealed to us in His
works,
but still more in the
manifestation that unified
God s
majesty,
human
mind and
corporal
matter in the theandric
person
of
Christ,
in whom the fulness
of the
Divinity
dwells
in
bodily
form. . . . Without
Christ we should
not
possess
God s
truth,
and in the same
way
we
should not know the truth of Christ if He were
only
a
figure
in
history.
It is not
only
in the
past,
but
also in the
present,
and
beyond
the
ordinary
limits
of our human
life,
that Christ in His
living reality
must be
presented
to
us;
and it is thus that we
perceive
Him in the Church.
Those who
fancy
that
they
can
dispense
with
any
intermediary,
and
obtain
personally
a full and definite revelation of
Christ,
are not
npe
for this revelation;*
and mistake
the
phantoms
of their own
imagination
for Christ,
*
These two words are underlined
by
Soloviev.
SOLOVIEV S
ASCETICISM
259
We
ought
to seek the fulness of
Christ,
not in our
individual
sphere,
but in that which is
universal
viz.,
the Church."
There
are, therefore,
two
parts
in this
work;
both refer to the relations between man and
God;
the former deals with the
individual,
the latter with
the social relations.
The conclusion of the
preface
sums them
up
in a
precept,
underlined
by
Soloviev:
"
Pray
to
God,
do
good
to
men,
restrain
your
im
pulses;
unite
yourself
inwardly
to the
theandric
life of
Christ;
recognize
His
active
presence
in
the
Church,
and make it
your
aim to
bring
His
Spirit
to bear
upon
every
detail of
natural,
human
life,
in order
that thus we
may
realize the
theandric
aim of our
Creator,
and
heaven
may
be united
with
earth."
In the first
part,
before
discussing
the
nature of
prayer,
Soloviev
explains
why
man
should
believe
in God. His
spontaneous
craving
for
immortality
and
justice
reveal to him a Good
proceeding
neither
from his
individual reason nor
from
cosmic
nature.
He
understands, then,
that he has no
right
to
live
careless of this
Good,
and so his
obligation
to
believe
in
God becomes
plain.
Yet this
faith,
superior
to
the
assaults of our
reason,
must at the
same
time
be
given
us
by
this
Good,
in such a
way
as not to
violate our
liberty.
When we realize our
weakness,
we
feel the
necessity
of
prayer.
Whoever
believes in
the
Good,
knowing
that he has
nothing good
in and
by himself,
must
needs
pray
i.e.,
he seeks to
unite
himself
with the
essentially
Good,
and
surrenders his
own
260 VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV
will such
spiritual
sacrifice
being prayer.
It
is
possible
not to believe in
God,
and this is
spiritual
death,
whereas to believe in oneself as the source
of
Good is absolute
folly.
True wisdom and
the
principle
of moral
perfection
consist
in
believing
in the divine source of all that is
good,
in
believing
in Him who is
Good,
praying
to
Him,
and surrender
ing
to Him our will in all
things."
Such is the
teaching
of the Pater Nosier.
One of the most remarkable sections
of the
first
part
is a
long
and
very
beautiful discussion
of the
PaterN
otter,
with an
analysis
of the three
temptations
that
successively
assail a
spiritual
man,
and that he
will overcome
only
if accustomed to have recourse
to God. We
may
select from it a few extracts.
The first
temptation
comes from the
body,
and
suggests
that a
spiritual
man is
superior
to
right
and
wrong,
and can no
longer
be stained with sin.
When this
temptation
is
conquered,
it
gives place
to another:
"
After the
spiritual
man has
prevailed
over the
temptation
of the
flesh,
that of the
spirit
follows. You know the
truth,
and true life has
begun
within
you.
This is not
given
to
all;
others
do not know the
truth,
as
you
see,
and true life
is
strange
to them.
Although
truth does not
pro
ceed from
you (as
the first
temptation
suggested),
it nevertheless
is
yours.
... To
you
it has been
granted
to receive true
life,
but not to others.
. . .
It must be that
you
were
already
better and
higher
than
they
were. And now . . ."
This
temptation
to self-satisfaction
and self-love
tends to substitute
for an
anxiety
to be a desire
SOLOVIEV
S ASCETICISM
261
to
appear
;
it has seduced
men of worth and
merit,
changing
them into founders
of
sects,
heresiarchs,
or
promoters
of national
separatism.
A
truly
spiritual
man,
who turns to God in
prayer,
when
assailed
by
this
temptation,
will
calmly say
:
"
Truth
is,
in and of
itself,
eternal,
infinite,
and
perfect.
Our mind can never do more than
participate
in
it. In truth there is no
self-seeking.
...
If, then,
I look
upon
truth as
my private
possession
and
make it an excuse
for self-satisfaction
and for
preferring myself
to
others,
I
prove
that I am not
yet
in the Truth."
How could Truth ever dwell
in the
proud
Veritas
in eo non est when
"
it
cannot be
recognized except
on a basis of
humility
and self-denial
"?
The third
temptation
is
ambition,
which strives
to raise our desires.
"
Lay
claim,"
it
says,
"
to
power,
in order to
promote
the
reign
of Good. Men know
nothing
of
truth,
so
gain
influence that
you may
bring
them into
subjection
to God."
A
spiritual
man will
reply:
"
Yes,
I
ought
to
co-operate
in the
salvation of the world and in
securing
its
practical
submission
to its divine
principle.
But it is false
to
say
that,
for this
reason,
I
ought
to strive to
dominate the world. ... If I
truly
desire God s
work to be
accomplished,
in His name and
according
to His
holy
will,
I have no
right
to seek
any personal
power,
nor should
I do
anything
with a view to
acquiring
it. I believe in
God,
and desire to do
His
work,
I
pray
that His
Kingdom may
come,
and I labour for this end
according
to the means
given
me,
and not
otherwise;
for I know neither
262
VLADIMIR SOLO VIEV
the secrets of His divine
economy,
nor the
ways
of
His
providence
and the
designs
of His wisdom. I
do not know what His
designs
are for
me,
nor for
the world.
My duty,
therefore,
is to
promote
the
glory
of God and the salvation of the world
by
the
means bestowed
upon
me,
and at the same time
patiently
to await their realization
according
to
God s
designs;
thus,
instead of
aggravating
the evil
around
me,
I shall diminish it
by my gentleness
and kindness."
In this
way
the
spiritual
man resists
every
temptation by
means of
prayer.
He
perceives
that in God s
sight
his interior life is
only beginning.
He is in
God,
and God is in
him,
but not all that is
in him is of God. This
truth,
that God does not
allow to be obscured for a man of
prayer, destroys
all the
sophistries
of
self-love,
because self-love is
particularist
and therefore
opposed
to the Good
and Divine.
The
practice
of
mercy
and self-sacrifice will com
plete
the work of
prayer.
The Eucharist is a
perfect synthesis
of absolute
prayer,
absolute
mercy
and absolute sacrifice.
It is
plain,
therefore,
that
religion
cannot be
a
purely
individual
matter;
it is
necessarily
social;
and the whole human race
collectively
is called to
union with God and His will. How can mankind
be
guided
towards this ideal ?
Men,
being
unable to attain to this union
by
their
own
efforts,
would not even conceive its
greatness
without a
revelation; but,
as it
is,
they
can
study
an inimitable model of it in the Incarnate
Word,
in
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM
263
His
theandric work as
Mediator,
and above all in
His
resurrection; but,
if
they
find that Eucharistic
Communion is the most effectual means of
develop
ing
the
divine life in
themselves,
it is
only through
the
Church that
they
can be
incorporated
into it
The aim of the Church is to
sanctify
men
by bringing
them
into union with God. This sanctification
cannot be
absolutely perfect
and
complete
in
any
of
the visible members of the Church
;
yet
it never
ceases to
proceed
from Christ and to diffuse itself
over the
Church
through
the most
holy
and immacu
late
Virgin
and the
invisible Church of the saints.
Being
thus
sanctified
by
the
Church, who,
as a
Church,
is not soiled
by
our
sins,
we
ought
to
acquiesce
in
losing
our own souls for her
sake,
losing
the isolation of our human
ego,
in order to find those
souls
again,
enlarged by
universal
charity
and raised
to a
superhuman
level
by
union with God. Such
detachment is
natural to the
simple,
but it is more
difficult to a
student,
although
he is the more bound
to
practise
it
because,
if he be a man of
good
will,
he receives more
light
on the truth. He will not
be
surprised
to
discover
progressive
elucidations
of
human
origin
attaching
to the divine and un
changing dogma,
culpable
failures in
duty
on the
part
of the
divinely appointed
hierarchy,
and,
in
the case of each of the seven
sacraments,
a whole
group
of
visible actions added to the essential
rite,
in order to render it more
comprehensible
to the faithful.
"
Orthodoxy
"
has no
right
to
condemn a Church
on the
ground
of
growth
in the
manifestation of
264
VLADIMIR
SOLOVIEV
the
hierarchy,
the truth and the sacraments.
On
the
contrary,
such
growth
is
commendable,
provided
that it serves to throw more
light upon
the essential
characteristic
of the true Church of Christ
viz.,
universality.
Without such
growth,
the Church
would no
longer
be able to reveal
herself, according
to God s
will,
as the
way,
in virtue of
possessing
a visible
hierarchy,
the
truth,
through
her
unity
of
infallibly promulgated
dogma,
and the
life,
through
her
sacraments,
that
sanctify
all who
receive them with
good
will. Now this threefold
manifestation
is
necessary,
since the Church,
being
founded
by
Christ in order to unite all mankind
with
God,
must
inevitably
be universal
or Catholic,
both in time and
space.
But this Catholic
society
that lives in the midst
of national societies and
respects
them,
seems
likely
to clash with the narrowness
of nationalism
and the
self-seeking
of individuals.
How can the
relations of local societies and their
governments
be reconciled
with the Church ? This
subject
is
discussed
in the last
chapter.
"
In a Christian
State,
the
sovereign power
exists, but,
far from
being
a deification
of human
caprice,
it is under
a
special
obligation
to
carry
out the will of God. A
repre
sentative
of
authority
in a Christian
State is not
only,
like the
pagan
Caesars,
possessed
of all the
rights
to use it
;
he
is,
above
all,
bound
by
all the
obligations
arising
from a
peculiarly
Christian
attitude
towards
the Church
i.e.,
towards the action of
God,
on
earth." This truth will
regulate
the relations
of
spiritual
men with the civil
power.
SOLOVIEV S ASCETICISM 265
After this
long explanation,
Soloviev summed
up
his views in a
magnificent
conclusion,
in which
we
can see what was the
directing principle
of all his
activity,
at least
during
the last fifteen
years
of
his life. Its title is The
Example
of
Christ as the
Guide
of
Conscience,
and it
begins
thus:
"The
supreme
aim of individual and social
morality
is
that
Christ,
in whom dwells the fulness
of the
Godhead in
bodily
form,
shall be the model of all
men in all
things.
Each of us can contribute
towards the realization of this
ideal,
if we ourselves
reproduce
Christ in our
personal
and social life."
This, therefore,
is the
practical
rule:
"Before
making any important
decision,
let us call
up
in
our minds the
image
of
Christ, and, concentrating
our
thoughts upon
it,
let us ask: Would He
perform
this action ?
Or,
in other words : Will He
approve
of
it,
nor not ? Will He bless me for this
work,
or not ?"
Soloviev adds:
"
I invite all to
adopt
this
practice,
for it never fails. In
every
case of
doubt,
whenever
the
possibility
of a choice is offered
you,
remember
Christ;
think of Him as
living,
for He is so
really,
and confide to Him all
your
difficulties.
. . . If men
of
good
will,
as
individuals,
or as members
of
society,
or as leaders of their fellow-men
and of
nations,
apply
this
principle, they
will indeed have it in
their
power
to
point
out to others the
way
to
God,
in the name of truth."
Soloviev was
thirty
when he wrote these forcible
lines. Their
emphatic
character shows that he
had
already long
been
practising
what he
taught,
266
VLADIMIR
SOLO VIE V
and to the end of his life he was
careful to
live,
as
he
advised others to
live,
in the
presence
and friend
ship
of
Christ. He
sought
and found Christ in His
universal
Church,
and he will still
make Him known
to
others. As
Viscount de
Vogue remarked,
Solo-
viev s
face was
enough
to make one think of
Christ,
his
words
taught
men to love
Him,
and his
example
should rouse
many
to follow Him.
On
December
3,
1900,
B.
Spassovitch,
writing
in the
Messager
de I
Europe,
said: "All his con
temporaries
showed
indifference to his chief
practical
idea,
the
reunion of the
Churches,
and no one
followed
him.
However,
if the life of nations is
defined
by
their
religion,
the
importance
of
Roman
Catholicism
must be admitted. If
we divide
Europe
into
two
groups,
we shall
undoubtedly
find that
Catholic
Europe
stands on a
higher
moral and
spiritual
level
than do the
anti-Catholic
portions.
The
conception
of the world
put
forward
by
a man
like
Dante
Alighieri
tends more
directly
towards
progress
than does that of a man like
Biichner;
St.
Francis of Assisi ranks before
Lassalle,
and the
spirit
of
Joan
of Arc cannot be
compared
with
Louise
Michel."
Ten
years later,
on
July
31
(August 13), 1910,
Petersov,
writing
in the Novoie
Vremia,
drew at
tention to the
great
change
due to Soloviev s
influence:
"
It
seems,"
he
says,
"
that he was still
writing only
yesterday.
He was a most
contempo
rary
writer,
full of the
spirit
of the
age. During
his life he
appeared
to have
nothing
to do with
time,
but now we hear on all sides of
societies,
SOLOVIEVS ASCETICISM
267
committees,
and associations
bearing
the name
Vladimir Soloviev
;
attention is now directed to the
questions
that absorbed all his
energy,
the
mystical
and
religious
value of life."
The
question
of
questions
is set to us
by
God,
and He
suggests
the answer.
God,
as Soloviev
used to
say, gives
us Himself
through
Christ,
and
gives
us Christ
through
the Church. How
happy
we should
be,
amid all the distractions and cares
that make
up
our
days,
to view all in the
light
of
eternity,
to know God is with us !
I rinted in
England.
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
V*.
W%
#*W8
$$M
*wj
"fe
WPlP
*K4 AWfi?/W